There
are uncertainties and conflicting views on some of the interactions involved in
the climate system. Much has been made of the apparent slow down in average
global temperature rises in recent years. Indeed some sceptics claim that this
refutes all the climate models, with some pointing to a 17 year or more period
when the running average did not indicate a rise. Explanations have been
offered, for example suggesting that the heat has been absorbed in the depths
of the oceans, but there is much debate about causes and effects, with some
saying that the temperature pause may last for up to 20 years. www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988
and http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
The
debate goes on. For example, here
are two more or less diametrically opposed accounts of the impacts of water
vapour on warming, as relayed in the media. One says humidity levels in the
upper atmosphere are increasing, as predicted by the climate models, the other
say they are falling, and disproves the models:
www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/aug/13/global-warming-moistening-the-atmosphere and www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/20/declining-relative-humidity-is-defying-global-warming-models/
And
this adjusts the story to fit! http://theconversation.com/study-vindicates-climate-models-accused-of-missing-the-pause-29477
Though this seems
like one of the best explanations for the ‘pause’ so far: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/July-2015/Steps-and-cycles
Then
again it is always possible that new explanations for at least some of the warming
may emerge e.g: http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/astronomy-paper-implies-solar-role-in-climate-change.html as well as new thinking on the basics: http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-temperature-co2-and-ch4/
However new
ideas, debate and
conflicts are the lifeblood of science, which moves through periods of doubt
and then consensus. At present, the vast
majority of climate scientists- up to 97%- are said to believe in human induced
climate change: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article (though see: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514003759)
This
contrasts strongly with the results of a UK public opinion survey by ComRes
for the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, a non-profit initiative
with an Advisory Board including MPs, Peers and leading academics, which found
that only 11% of their sample were aware of the strength of the scientific
consensus, while 47% thought either that most climate scientists reject the
idea that human activities are the main driver of climate change (11%), or that
scientists are evenly split on the issue (35%). www.comres.co.uk
For
its part though, the Global Warming Policy Foundation quoted an American
Meteorological Society poll of their membership, which showed only 52% felt
that global warming was mostly man-made. http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=c1d9a193f3&e=7dd8204640
Moreover
nearly three-quarters of UK Conservative MPs did not accept that climate change
has been proven to be caused by human activity, according to a Populus poll of
119 MPs from all parties. www.thegwpf.com/overwhelming-majority-of-conservative-mps-are-climate-sceptics/
What
about the public? 500,000
or so people took part in climate protests around the world in 2014, including
300,000 in the USA, and big marches in London and Melbourne. In a Populus UK
public opinion poll, 73%
wanted world leaders to agree a global deal and 66% thought action must happen
now, only 20% felt it could wait a few years. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/public-want-urgent-global-action-to-tackle-climate-change
However the
barrage of contrarian views, as relayed by the media, seems to have had a major impact in some countries, the US
in particular, where global warming and responses to it are very politicised
issues. Given that the USA has experienced many severe weather-related shocks
in recent years, this may be surprising, but it remains the case that no one
weather event can necessarily be directly liked to climate change.
There is a huge
social and political science agenda here- concerning how views are formed and
changed. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629614000073
This debate also
obviously involves climate scientists. Those who are professionally convinced
that climate change is real and significant can get somewhat annoyed by the
campaigns mounted by contrarian groups, especially if these groups are backed,
as it is sometimes alleged, by fossil fuel interests. There may be a temptation
to enter the fray, and certainly some do make public statements. On the other
side of the fence, some scientists (a small number) have joined or support
contrarian groups and risk approbation from their colleagues and the
media.
For example, the
UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), set up by Lord Lawson, is
well known for its often strident lobbying on energy/climate issues, backed up
by reports from academics evidently sympathetic to its views, overseen by an
Advisory Council. It recently made much of the resignation of one such, who claims
to have been subject to peer pressure to distance himself from the GWPF.www.thegwpf.org/the-bengtsson-affair-and-the-global-warming-policy-foundation/
The climate
debate has certainly been bitter at times, with on one hand, skeptics alleging
that the official IPCC stance is unduly politically shaped and, on the other,
attacks being made on contrarians. Sometimes this can involve attempts to
discredit individuals and their work. Since academics of all types and
persuasions can and do align themselves with lobby groups, and go public, they
do risk charges of bias. That’s
arguably fair enough- it comes with the territory. But personal attacks are
surely much less justifiable. Although identifying political and institutional
affiliations may be valid, in general critics should play the ball, not the man
(or woman). While many do not see GWPF and similar groups as making a helpful
contribution, the debate has to continue, with heretical and ‘outlier’ views
playing their part. That surely is how good science is done. Though there must
be limits! It’s pretty clear that the world is not flat…
However getting
the right balance can be hard. A 2014 report by the UK Science and Technology
Select Committee said that the Government was failing to clearly and
effectively communicate climate science to the public. The Chair of the
Committee said: ‘The Government's hands-off approach to engaging with
the public and the media, relying heavily on scientists as the most prominent
voice, has a resulted in a vacuum that has allowed inaccurate arguments to
flourish with little effective challenge. Science is the ultimate sceptic, challenging
theories and opinion and ready to abandon or adapt as the available evidence
changes. Genuine scepticism should be embraced by the climate science
community. Dogma on either side of the debate should be revealed as such.’
The Committee
also accused the BBC of misleading the public about climate change, creating a
‘false balance’ by allowing unqualified climate sceptics too much air time and
giving opinion the same weight as fact.
There certainly
have been some odd notions expressed in the media, as well as claims of
inaccuracies by some participants: e.g. in relation
to the cost of climate change: www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2014/March/Errors-in-estimates-of-the-aggregate-economic-impacts-of-climate-change.aspx
The
debate on policy, and on the science, continues… with James Lovelock
saying ‘It’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You
can’t be certain’. Is he right?
