Every day we use things we couldn’t make, eat things we haven’t prepared and take medication we don’t understand. The world is awash with competing claims about what we should do or believe: eggs will give you a heart attack! Eggs are great for you! Sleep eight hours! Hakuna Matata! Everyone likes to say they are independent-minded but we don’t have the time or resources to make all our own decisions and we are outraged when the people we’ve outsourced them too get them wrong. But we aren’t complacent about all received knowledge.
Climate change is an issue that tends to polarise opinions, no pun intended. Their aren’t many people who think the climate is sort of changing drastically or that millions of Africans will kind of have to deal with decades of drought or that burning lots of coal is maybe going to have a happy ending. As with most things in life people make one decision that signs them up to a whole package of issues. In the same way that being Republican in the US means hating abortion and loving the death penalty and hating taxes and loving nuclear families.
Being a CC sceptic or adherent means thinking x, y and z about ice, oceans and history etc. Having an opinion on CC also means vilifying the other side: believers are duped, self-righteous, sinister and denialists are stupid, backward and attention-seeking. Arguments between denialists and adherents usually degenerate into slinging around stats and giving poor accounts of eons of climate history. They are also deadly boring. What I think is interesting, on the other hand, is to have a conversation not about what we know but about how we know it. After all, denialists are in some sense drawing on some of the premises of scientific knowledge: that we should be sceptical. They also quite rightly point out that scientists have no special claim to being good at designing policy and policy-makers do not have good track records with drawing on scientific information. A better conversation could be had, methinks, by avoiding the stats and talking about the legitimacy of the information. After all climate science covers a huge range of disciplines.
Very few people in the world could understand all of the original source material for what is synthesised to be the scientific narrative of anthropogenic climate change. I’d like to lay out why I buy the IPCC’s story — Himalayan glaciers or no Himalayan glaciers — by way of making argument about how it is we come to trust information. I have a firm belief that anthropogenic climate change is taking place and poses a considerable threat to our societies and I hold that belief because:
My information comes from people I respect:
This is not a really a good prima facie reason to believe anything. I could respect these people for any number of bad reasons ie because they are rich and powerful, because they are charismatic or just because everybody else is doing it. Most of my information comes from the IPCC reports in which I invest respect because I take it to represent scientific consensus. And I also defer to scientific consensus that the medication I take is safe, that smoking increases my chance of developing lung cancer, that HIV causes Aids etc while recognising that it is subject to error and manipulation. If I defer on these occasions I see no reason why not to on other issues.
My information comes from multiple sources:
If I based everything I knew about what’s going in South Africa on reporting in Die Son I’d think visions of Satan in various foodstuff were a top concern. Likewise if all understanding about climate change was based on one research team’s efforts it would be highly likely to be subject to bias, error and manipulation. Talking about the IPCC report might give the impression that it is written by a few scientists running around corkscrewing ice cores and measuring the density of seawater. Rather it’s something more like a huge, huge number of analysts performing a highly critical synthesis of an even huger body of literature. The report is in fact nothing more than a literature review of hundreds and thousands of scholarly articles emanating from thousands of researchers in labs and universities.
Those sources have been verified as being trustworthy:
These scholarly articles come from peer-reviewed journals, many of which were produced without concern or interest in their implications for climate change. The bias exposed by the University of East Anglia email hack relates to only one of many of these journals.
The information has been produced without a cherished outcome:
We cannot say that the IPCC operates without interests. But it certainly operates in a world of competing interests. In the both the past and present those with an interest in downplaying the status quo and projected effects of CC wielded significantly more political and economic power. Wind-farm investors and biofuel agriculturalists are businesspeople like any other but their political and economic clout is tiny compared to that of fossil fuel-based industries, just like the power disparity between the Maldives and the US. The 4th IPCC report had 2 500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors and more than 450 lead authors. It also had to censor its “Summary for Policy Makers” according to the comments of 113 governments, including those of the US and China who held denialist positions at the time. Recent studies have indicated that in many cases this report underestimates the acceleration of CC.
When I consider the prospect of it being false and conclude that it is more unrealistic:
For anthropogenic CC to be a conspiracy it would have to involve the complicity — or the deception — of 99% of the scientific community, most world governments, the UN and international financial institutions, editors of scores of academic journals, thousands of academics and researchers, thousands of NGOs marshalling their scarce financial resources to make some noise about it, thousands of peasants who are becoming increasingly vocal and the dirt-poor, small islands prepared to go carbon neutral. It would require the manipulation of scientific discoveries that go back 150 years. If a lobby this powerful exists then they are the most bad-ass political entity we’ve ever encountered.
So – how do we define truth? Is it finite or an illusion?
The joy of an active mind is to constantly question and evaulate; listen to others and weigh their input. I learnt something very special today – nuclear scientists can also care bout the environment. This was great and I am grateful for having an open mind
Nice one. great explanations. It would be wonderful if you could also go through the process of The Scientific Method with the unenlightened. Only those who study the sciences are taught this important secret apparently. Pity. The “peer review” process as well. I’ve realised from arguments with evolution and climate change denialist that there is great misunderstanding about this processes. Another very abused term “fact” could also do with redefining. The popular meaning these days seem to have devolved to “that which is said by he who shout the loudest/has the most money/certificates” and “that which makes me feel more comfortable” or “that which suits my budget or popular fashion/politics/economics” and notably “that which most of us agree on even though we don’t have the foggiest” (science by consensus of the uninformed). Abused truths, misinformation, plain lies and my personal pet hate: twisted truth, are the worst enemies of progress in the search for knowledge and development. From what I see around me these days I wonder if we are not entering a second(?) dark ages period. Can we expect book burning episodes in the near future?
@Simone
Thanks, excellent analysis of the so-called CC debate. Other than sniping at mainstream science the CC denailsits cannot come up with anything substantail to disprove anthopogenic CC.
What facinated me was your first paragraph refers to food and medication, in this case industry won the ‘debate’ despite significant research to the contrary. South Africa grows substantial amounts of genetically modified (GM) maize, soya and cotton. Cotton seed oil is used in vegetable oils and the fast food industry. Cows and goats have died grazing on GM cotton flieds in the Eastern Cape but this has harldy hit the news, and GM maize our staple is being dished out to humans???
The Health Risks of GM Foods: Summary and Debate:
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/GeneticRoulette/HealthRisksofGMFoodsSummaryDebate/index.cfm
Monsanto GM seed producer was presented with the ‘Angry Mermaid’ award from NGO’s at Copenhagen climate conference, as it tries to destoy our planet with its GM seeds to produce biofuels. Competing interests yes, there is big money to be made out of climate change, sell fossil fuels to grow GM crops to feed vehicles and increase starvation and destroy the planets biodiversity at the same time.
The reach of global corporations is to the ends of the earth.
Also look at the DVD, “The world according to Monsanto”, and find the web site, “The Monsanto Files” for even more scary information.
The pesticide industry and biotech industry need to be reigned in along with the fossil fuel industry.
Climate change has become an emotive issue. Recently I asked the question on a blog, why are the media ignoring Climate-gate? My question was just ignored or brushed aside. I am not sure people want to know the facts behind climate change.
Let me tell you why I don’t trust most scientists. I am not convinced they are so trustworthy as they would want us to believe (that’s apart from Climate-gate).
I don’t take CC seriously because someone I really trust with my life has made a promise that the world will never be destroyed through water. On the contrary he said it will be destroyed through fire. So why will I get all cooked up about the see rising one or two or ten inches, that is not where the threat lies.
I think we should use renewable energy because through the traditional methods (coal and nuclear) we are creating a lot of waste. The waste is more detrimental to our health than the climate.
What is your assessment of Superfreakonomics chapter 5?
Perhaps God made the hole in the ozone layer to allow all those beefy farts out…how do we know this is the first ever hole in the ozone layer? But no one needs a brain to realise that much that is man-made or man-engineered is making our planet less lovely and less habitable, surely?
Good question Simone, and one few ask of themselves . . HOW do you know that?
Sadly today, the bulk of well educated people, even straight A students, leave our school systems without a clue as to what ‘science’ is.
Belief is the premise of religion, and consensus is the realm of politics, science will brook no part of either.
“Very few people in the world could understand all of the original source material for what is synthesised to be the scientific narrative[...]”
In that sentence you have encapsulated the reality of ‘layman science’ … If you do not “understand all of the original source material” how can you rationally establish its validity, or pronounce upon the validity or otherwise of a contrary hypothesis?
Short answer is you can’t, and such a grasp of science is no more than an article of faith.
Consensus does not ‘prove’ anything, scientific proof is, or should be restricted to mathematical theorems.
Politics operates by majority opinion, and by the ideological “synthesis” of reality, science is driven by skepticism as to ones ‘knowledge’ of reality, and by experiment.
Einstein himself once said that no amount of experimentation would ever prove his theories were right, but just one experiment could prove him wrong.”
Science is unrelated to trust or to what appeals to reason, that’s best left to our ‘leaders’ and their philosophies , which have successfully brought about the deaths of about 200 million people over the course of last century.
‘My information comes from people I respect’
(So those you respect provide more creditworthy science and those you disrespect provide less creditworthy science?)
‘My information comes from multiple sources’
(Clearly not the one of 4 sources provided below)
‘Those sources have been verified as being trustworthy’
(Guess what – even the opposition use this argument)
‘When I consider the prospect of it being false and conclude that it is more unrealistic: For anthropogenic CC to be a conspiracy …
(So if the IPCC is wrong then it’s a conspiracy?)
Balance your argument:
http://tinyurl.com/ykx7lwk
http://tinyurl.com/ldu2yb
http://tinyurl.com/ybzr67v
http://tinyurl.com/3sjq5e
Interesting piece, Simone, though I think you’re off target with your premise that the climate change debate is neatly partitioned into extreme camps. I suspect that in this argument and others like it – gay rights, SA emigration debate, Israel/Palestine etc – the obvious polarisation that makes the news does so because it is newsworthy, not because it is the majority consensus. People who aren’t sure hold their tongues, people who are sure – whether ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ (if there is such a thing) – are vocal. Having dealt with the SA emigration debate extensively in recent years, I know that behind the closed-minded rantings on either end of the argument (SA is bad, you’re morally liable to leave for the sake of your children v SA can do no wrong) there are plenty of unsure people looking for information and guidance.
In the case of climate change, I suspect there are many people who don’t know what to believe because, as you say, the science is incomprehensible to them, and the political motivations for ulterior agendas on both sides of the arguments are very plausible. (You cannot just dismiss the East Anglia emails out of hand – they have justifiably increased AGW skepticism.)
In my case, I am skeptical (in the true sense of the word) about the A in AGW and about the enormous financial implications of suggested actions to counter it. See the comment “No hiding place” here: http://www.economist.com/user/nondescript/comments
Hey Simone,
My impression was that there have been quite extensive evidence that the IPCC had made extensive use of non-peer reviewed journal articles, student articles, climate change activist tracks and other sources that diminish the reliability of their reports. I whole heartedly agree with your argument that we should rely more on the evidence of experts but it seems that the IPCC has, if the blog posts I am remembering are correct, lost a fair amount of its claims to reliability.
Anyway, I may just be talking nonsense and I am too lazy to go back and find the various articles on the IPCC’s inaccuracies.
How do we know what we know The authors reasons
fully underpin USA,UK, World Leaders and UNO belief in the totally imaginary Weapons of Mass Destruction supposedly housed by Saddam Hussein.
In addition THE TRUTH at any one time is subjective ie Observed as in quantum theory
The IPCC is a politically appointed intergovernmental body. It cannot represent a “scientific consensus” though it does a consensus of politicians.
I have asked journalists, politicians & alarmist lobbyists now totalling in the thousands to name 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here.
There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.
@Perry Curling-Hope – I.o.w. ignorance and faith goes together like education and knowledge. Opposites. Nice to know that my theory still holds: faith is only necessary when we are unable to prove the belief (hypothesis).
Great piece Simone – Agree with the writer who says perhaps only the polarised sides of the debate get aired though – in my experience people often tread water while they try to make sense of the information – not because they’re fence-sitters but because they genuinely want to be able to stand behind a well-thought out and informed position. I happen to accept that CC is anthropogenic, but even if I were treading water in the debate, it wouldnt change my commitment to address anthropogenic environmental degradation.
@Mark – From one of the sources you posted: “The fact that IPCC is not infallible does not make its key findings untrue or biased” That basically sums it up for me. It is all about goals and intent. Scientists (real ones not politicians pretending to be scientists) check, recheck and cross check each other’s work rigorously and without mercy. Scientists are human and fallible, yes sure. Mostly the reason it takes so long to even have a new idea, never mind a minor hypothesis excepted in scientific circles. The possibility of losing your credibility as a scientist is just too horrifying to contemplate for any scientist to make trivial or emotionally biased statements, not backed by solid experimental proof. Scientist are on the whole rather egotistical loners and to get them to all to join the one conspiracy would be an impossible task. So, the IPCC could be fallible, but surely more accurate in their synopsis of scientific findings than the vehicle manufacturers or bio-fuel farmers or 4×4 driver, not so?
i too find a direct parallel in religion. i have a laugh sometimes at people that go on about there only being 160 years of coal reserves left (omg were gonna die out!) or somewhere thereabouts when my take on that is this: we timed it perfectly didn’t we in that we consumed exactly enough coal as was available to us to evolve into beings capable of harvesting energy elsewhere – let’s face it, by definition energy is the most ubiquitous thing in existence and to think the world is going to end through our recycling of it is just plain weird.
or have we really become that selfish?
@Tim R: I think one thing I forgot stress in the blog is that this argument is really targeted at fence-sitters and people who are reluctant to engage with the information out there because denialist debates have made everything seem more ambiguous than it is. It is the extremists whose views get aired more frequently and they create a distorted impression on what lay consensus is, and the media is very complicit in this. However it is not just the profit motives of the media that drive the publicisation of denialist views – denialist think tanks and bloggers get funding from lobby groups which stir up dissent with the express purpose of derailing serious responses to climate change, of which the Exxon Mobil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding) example is the most publicised. Also, polls show that in the UK where there is (relative to SA) a huge amount of reporting on climate change over 50% of the population still doubt that it is anthropogenic.
@Pieter Pretorius: In the UK ‘climategate’ was reported on extensively and is constantly alluded to. It did massive damage to the credibility of climate science. I think though if you look at the emails they are a lot less damning than they are made out to be.
@Pieter Pretorius: In the UK ‘climategate’ was reported on extensively and is constantly alluded to. It did massive damage to the credibility of climate science. I think though if you look at the emails they are a lot less damning than they are made out to be.
@David Watson: The majority of articles that were used by the IPCC were peer-reviewed but they did draw on some non-peer reviewed and some unpublished materials. This was surely in part out of necessity – that the research they needed to look at was so current that it had not yet undergone that process – and they have subsequently defended these decisions by saying these articles were subsequently published. On the whole the certainty with which they argue that CC is anthropogenic is based on hundreds of pieces of research, not a few unpublished theses. The way that the IPCC operates is certainly deserving of criticism – it is untransparent and in the words of another blogger ‘hands down its reports like tablets from on high’. But the vociferousness of the criticism it is receiving at presents appears to be a concerted and organised attack.
Climategate was just another publicity stunt by the oil industry and their denialist lackeys who blog in the comments sections on sites like this.
No nationally or internationally recognised scientific body has challenged the IPCC findings since 2007. Crank scientists and people with science degrees from right wing think tank spew out nonsensical rhetoric all the time but there is no peer reviewed science to support the denialists claims, so they have to resort to antics like Climategate. Expect a lot more from these clowns before the Mexico climate conference later this year.
@ Neil Craig – you need to check your facts before entering a debate, not swallow what you read on anti-IPCC blog. Try going to the IPCC website itself and poke around a bit. http://www.ipcc/ch Read http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/ipcc-errors-facts-spin for a more balanced view.
And if you want a non-government scientist who backs global warming try James Lovelock.
Good piece, Simone. Remember, too that there are three previous IPCC reports. In it’s first report in 1991 the IPCC concluded that it would take at least a decade to discern a human signal in the earth’s temperature change. It took 15 years. In general, IPCC provides a conservative estimate of the risks we face from global warming. It is extremely interesting to go back on these reports and see how the information has evolved – and become polarised by vested interests on both sides.
Thank you for that Frank. As I said i have asked thousands of alarmists to name 2 prominent scientists who support catastrophic warming without being paid by government. Not a single 1 has nmed as many as 2 out of what should be 100s of thousands if the “consensus” were not a lie. One other person, an editor of the “Independent” newspaper, has named 1 such alarmist scientist. She also named James Lovelock. I think that proves conclusively that there is just 1 – worldwide. So the “consensus” is indeed a total & deliberate lie.
Or perhaps you can come up with #2?