Sunday, February 20, 2005
Are Kyoto's Sceptics getting louder, or just more desperate?

While the evidence builds, the attacks on scientists, environmental groups and the doom-merchants of human-induced global climate change become fiercer. On 16th February, the Kyoto Protocol became legally binding on the nations that ratified. This event has been met with an all out assault from “The Sceptics”, who – though not necessarily building in numbers – are become louder.

The majority of us are not climatologists. Some may have a good grasp of the issues and may even have taken a stab at interpreting the raw data themselves. But unless you are working at the frontline of climate science, you rely on the media and media savvy-scientists to filter the evidence for our consumption. This is the interface of science and politics.

A priori judgements are therefore abound. When science meets politics and trillions of dollars are at stake, scientific method is shunted to the background and we take our cues from trusted sources which reflect our existing values. Sceptic or advocate – there are few that are ambivalent about whether anthropogenic CO2 is causing climate change.

But as the New Scientist [12.02.05] points out, most of The Sceptics can be accused of having a certain interest in the status quo. Many are employed by lobbyists or industry front-groups, funded by business - the extractive industry in particular. None of the most vociferous Sceptics, NS, pointedly notes, are actually climatologists. Most are economists, business people or scientists from alternate disciplines ("Meet the sceptics", New Scientist, 12.02.05).

Typical of this, Brisbane’s Courier-Mail [18.02.05], recently ran the archetypal sceptic-advocate op-ed feature on climate change. The Sceptic’s position was promoted by a biologist, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, employed by the self-confessed free market think-tank, the Institute of Public Affairs. The advocate for Kyoto was Frank Muller, an adjunct professor who has previously worked in climate change policy units in different levels of government and for the UNFCCC. Okay, so both have their agendas – but only one has experience of working the science of climate change.

In his field, J. M. Crichton is respected as one of the more successful and industrious protagonists. In his recent book, “State of Fear”, he describes a world coming to the realisation that climate change is nothing but an evil conspiracy, perpetrated by environmental ‘extremists’, willing to kill to hide the ‘truth’. But, of course, Crichton’s forte is purveyor of pulp fiction (after successfully studying medicine); he is notable for such pseudo-scientific extravaganzas as Jurassic Park and The Andromeda Strain.

That San Diego has not so far been traumatised by a savage T. Rex, brought back from extinction, should be ample confirmation that Crichton’s musings on climate change should not be interpreted as serious scientific postulation. Yet at a recent conference on climate change, hosted by the UK’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Sceptics were gleefully distributing free copies of Crichton’s novel.

But surely, The Sceptics have something more to offer than science fiction and compromised cronies? To be fair they do.

Meet the sceptics

A great deal of uncertainly over the data and the meaning of the data still exists. The extent to which human actions can impact on something as vast and complex as the planet’s climate system is contentious. Tracking levels of atmospheric CO2 against mean temperatures over the last 30,000 years can reveal as many trends as you can shake a stick at, dependent on where, when or how you compare apples with pears. There are, after all, lies, dam lies and statistics.

Huge uncertainty also remains over the efficacy of climate change modelling – so bold are the assumptions that are built-in by scientists. Accepting the physics – that there is a plausible mechanism for CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas – climate change modelling still makes conjectures bordering on the scientifically unacceptable. Assumptions are made on the behaviours of both negative feedback mechanisms (automatic processes pulling the planet back towards stability) and positive feedback mechanisms (those that lead to self-perpetuation, pushing the planet towards a runaway greenhouse effect).

Clouds – their behaviour in and effect on a warming world – have proved to be notoriously difficult to model. For example, a warming world would increase evaporation and create more water vapour, which could generate more clouds of water droplets, which would then reflect more heat back into space, before it has even entered the atmosphere, thus working to cooling the planet. This is an example of negative feedback – a reversion towards the normal; the number of ‘coulds’, emphasising the number of assumptions made.

Alternatively, increased temperatures that increased evaporation could fill the atmosphere with more water vapour – far more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. Additionally, increased cloud cover could trap ever-greater amounts of heat in the troposhere, thus creating a positive feedback mechanism potentially leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. Further feedback mechanisms are also little understood, such as net effects of changing levels of polar ice and vegetation cover and oceanic currents. It is this still primitive knowledge that generates huge differentials in the modelling results, which undermines the credibility of Kyoto proponents.

The balance of negative and positive feedback is likely to be the extent of any global climate change. Modelling can only go so far – and the effect of the clouds, ice and vegetation remains little understood – so far.

Sceptics also accuse climate scientists of ‘toeing the line’; recollecting Thomas Kuhn’s critique of the scientific community’s tendency to work within established ‘paradigms’ in his "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Rather than refutation being the dominant model of the scientific method, researchers are reluctant to challenge established theories through fear of castigation and loss of funding or credibility. The Sceptics see human induced climate change as the only game in town – an industry band-wagon as it were, drumming up fear and cajoling conformity enforcement, with all the usual emotive connotations of Stalinism and burning any sceptical heretics at the stake (See www.couriermail.news.com.au).

Crichton’s portrayal of zealous scientists betraying their discipline and crossing the line between science and ‘faith’ is undoubtedly based on the reading of Bjørn Lomborg’s "The Sceptical Environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world". Lomborg has routinely been the most persuasive critic of climate change, accusing scientists of outright fraud and condemning environmentalists as purveyors of doom for believing the scientists. In Lomborg’s reformed activist view (he was once a member of Greenpeace), ‘we’ve never had it so good’.

But indisputably, most Sceptics are motivated by political and business affiliation, guilty of accusations they themselves level at the fear-mongerers. This may make their scientific assertions dubious but it does not make their judgements meaningless and it provides some important lessons for the scientific community and environmental groups that advocate Kyoto.

Responding to the threats of climate change is an overtly political issue. While climate scientists would wish to see policy responses formulated through objectivity alone, this will simply not happen. Scientists are jostling to control the agenda with powerful interests that seek to persuade otherwise. Scientists should be aware that they will be challenged by those with other specialist skills - in presentation, public relations and political lobbying; a formidable range of talents when you’re armed merely with line-charts and reams of figures.

And climate scientists also need to be aware that some Sceptics do not necessarily dispute the physics or the impact of climate change, but rather consider the uncertainty to be so great that we are better advised to avert our attention to more pressing issues. For instance, we are more certain that sub-Saharan is already experiencing an HIV epidemic of such magnitude that it could decimate the population. If politics involves a process of allocating funds to competing priorities, for many, responding to tangible human suffering occurring on such a scale, is vastly more important. So while human induced climate change may be happening, it is simply isn’t that important to rich voters for whom climate change could be bonus, bringing Mediterranean winters to northern Europe.

But despite what that eminent advocate of the sciences, George W. Bush, may say, amongst climate scientists there is really little dispute that there are serious problems that need significant policy responses. Mainstream climatology is in agreement that we will experience big changes in climate if anthropogenic CO2 emissions continue unabated. Nor is this a Kuhnian paradigm, enforcing consensus; Sceptics are either ill informed or have pecuniary interests in the status quo.

Not so fast

Both the mechanism and the evidence are there. Glaciers and ice-sheets are melting faster (See http://news.bbc.co.uk), less UV-radiation is being reflected back from the planet’s surface, the pH of the oceans is decreasing (See http://news.bbc.co.uk), regional and global temperatures are increasing (See www.bom.gov.au) and, most importantly, CO2 levels are some 33% higher than pre-industrial days, before we began to burn fossil fuels and chop down all the trees (See New Scientist 12.02.05, pp. 38-43).

Life on Planet Earth is robust. For it to have sustained life for some 3.85 billion years this versastility is a prerequisiteⁱ. It has experienced mass extinctions, asteroid impacts and volatile volcanic episodes which have altered atmospheric chemistry and blocked out the sun. Indeed, palaeontologists have suggested that the constantly changing planet – from tectonic shifts and mountain building to encroaching and retreating ice-sheets – has been an important factor in driving evolutionary adaptation. A stable and successful species has less incentive to evolve than one faced with a changing environment.

But it is the rate of contemporary change, caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, that is potentially catastrophic - for poor nations of people and for biodiversity. Unfortunately, neither are in positions of power to influence global policy responses.

For these reasons the Australian Government’s stubborn refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is an embarrassment. It has signed it and negotiated the most generous deal in the industrialised world (“The Australia Clauseⁱⁱ”), but has so far failed to abide by both the principles - that reductions in emissions from transport and energy should be at the core - and its binding requirements.

The Australian Government’s position is backed neither by science, precaution or solidarity with the rest of the world. It is backed only by selfishness and John Howard’s commitment to strategic dependence on the USA. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly uncertain whether the Howard administration even considers anthropogenic CO2 emissions is an issue for climate change, following recent comments from the Federal Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, who said that he didn’t really know. This is nothing less than shameful.

The Sceptics have their lobbyists in Canberra and Washington and their media proprietors sat outside the doors of editorial offices – their voice is being heard loud and clear. ‘Balancing’ the views of The Sceptics with the global consensus - that anthropogenic CO2 emissions is damaging our future - is akin to suggesting that the world is not actually spherical due to the existence of the Flat Earth Society.


Endnotes

i. Perhaps the most extraordinary example of negative feedback is recent evidence which suggests that when the Great Barrier Reef gets a little warm from too much sunlight, corals and their symbiotic algae release dimethylsulphide, an aerosol that stimulates the formation of cloud cover. (See www.publish.csiro.au)

ii. Including land clearing in its carbon accounting has been the sole reason Australia remains on course to meet its Kyoto target. Now that Queensland has stopped chopping down trees, Howard can breathe easier. Removing land clearing from the equation would see Australian CO2 emissions at 123% by 2010.

---

---