It is a truth universally acknowledged, by idiots, that to engage in the scientific study of man’s impact on the Earth’s climate is to peddle propaganda on behalf of the environmental lobby. So-called “climate sceptics”, whose beliefs are untainted by evidence and whose arguments are unburdened by analysis, take every opportunity to vilify scientists whose research adds to the torrent of evidence that human activity is the main driver of climate change at this particular point in history.
There is a long tradition of shooting the messenger, and it is maintained by those whose world view demands that they angrily deny reality, and lash out at anyone bearing evidence that they do not want to hear. In the case of the climate sceptics, the lashing out often takes the form of deliberately confusing the the presentation of scientific evidence with advocating increased state control over people’s lives and behaviour, or the return to a pre-industrial dark age. The underlying assumption behind the campaign to discredit scientific evidence of human-induced climate change is that, by saying that the data support the theory of anthropogenic “global warming”, scientists are telling people what they should do and how they should live their lives.
It is true that many climate scientists have become advocates for action to combat climate change, but science and advocacy are completely different things. The personal and political opinions of scientists might inform their decisions when it comes to what type of research they pursue, or even what sort of research questions they ask. Nonetheless, whatever results a scientist might personally prefer to find, if their research is designed properly they should find what the evidence indicates, regardless of their preference. The purpose of the process of academic peer-review is to ensure that research is well designed and that conclusions are robust, and do not go beyond what the data indicate. How many of those who sit around bad-mouthing working climate scientists have ever tied to get a paper published in Nature?
The science of climate change is not based on what academics think, on the esoteric arguments of woolly professors sitting in their ivory towers, cushioned from reality. It is based on decades of painstaking research, the results of which are constantly challenged and reviewed, usually fiercely. Scientists sometimes appear to enjoy nothing better than rubbishing their colleagues’ research. With very few exceptions, only the stuff that stands up to close scrutiny gets through. This is the basis of our understanding of climate change.
If human-induced climate change is a lie, it is a lie maintained by tens of thousands of scientists and hundreds of scientific journals. If it is a lie, we may as well abandon the scientific method and discard the process of peer review, both of which have been developed specifically to minimise the chances of scientific error and scientific fraud. This might please many sceptics, who seem to believe that uninformed opinion and superficially logical but scientifically flawed arguments should hold equal weight to rigorous scientific enquiry. Given the propensity of lobbyists to use misinformation and relativism to confuse the public over scientific issues in order to achieve their political, ideological and economic objectives, the subtle but deliberate equating of science with media punditry is not surprising. Two sides of the argument my arse. One side is based on evidence and the other isn’t, and science is not simply about “argument”.
Almost to a man (and occasional woman), those who tell us that the world is not warming, or that any observed warming is not our fault and will not continue, favour the continued expansion of industrial development based on fossil fuels, and are hostile to the development of alternative energy sources. This is probably not entirely due to the sceptics being in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby, although this no doubt plays a significant part. Those who work so hard to discredit the science of climate change seem to be principally concerned that acceptance of the science must inevitably lead to draconian measures to curb industrial activity, and to shut down fossil fuel production. This is indeed the usual corollary to the conclusion that we are changing the Earth’s climate at a potentially dangerous rate, and seems like the sensible thing to do if we accept the science. However, massive deindustrialisation, or even the abandonment of fossil fuels, is not the only legitimate response to the threat of climate change.
It is interesting that the deniers of the science do not share the faith in technology exhibited by some of their counterparts who have accepted the reality of climate change but who question the need to radically, and rapidly, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This faith in technology leads some to advocate solutions to climate change such as planetary engineering in the form of giant space mirrors, seeding the ocean with iron, “scrubbing” excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it underground, sequestering carbon as it is produced during combustion, or deploying a multitude of smaller-scale technologies to help people adapt to climate change. There is massive technological potential for developing cleaner sources of energy that will mean the above measures are unnecessary. Whether these approaches are sensible or workable is not really the point here. The point is that there is an argument to be had as to whether climate change means we have to deindustrialise or even reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. This debate is happening, but it is happening rather quietly, and tends to be drowned out by the torrent of dogma from those who believe they know best (and this includes pundits of all political persuasions).
There is another option that is rarely discussed. We could continue with our use of fossil fuels, and simply accept that this may result in the end of our “global civilization”. Willfully bringing about the end of civilization by deciding to continue with our addiction to fossil fuel-based economic growth represents one of the choices available to us. And it is the choice we seem to be making anyway. So why is no-one calling a spade a spade and openly saying “Hell, let’s just carry on as normal and accept the consequences”. This might sound absurd, but human beings make similar decisions all the time. People decide to carry on smoking, or to continue having unprotected casual sex, despite knowing the risks. Some people with potentially fatal diseases decide not to have treatment. Sometimes this is because the treatment is unpleasant, and it cannot be guaranteed that it will be successful. Better to enjoy what is left of life as much as possible and then to die, than to spend months sedated and sick in the hope of a cure that may not materialise. Perhaps humanity should be honest with itself and admit that it would rather live for the moment, even if this means destroying the civilization of which it is apparently so proud, than go through the potentially painful treatment necessary to wean it off the diseased teat of the carbon-intensive economy. If we’re going to rip our societies apart because we’re too selfish, greedy or stupid to do otherwise, at least we should be honest about it.
As far as I’m concerned, this is a valid option. After all, my democratic instincts mean that I’m compelled to accept the will of the people, and the people seem to have decided that self-destruction is preferable to action. That’s why, although I’ll tell you that climate change is happening, and all the evidence indicates that we are behind it and that it will get much worse if we continue with business as usual, I won’t follow that assertion with an exhortation to stop driving or flying. What you “should” do depends on what outcome you want to achieve. If you don’t want to participate in the possible climate-related destruction of civilization by contributing to the changes in climate that may well lead to large-scale drought, famine, war and mass migration, then perhaps you should examine your lifestyle. However, these possibilities (many would say probabilities) may not bother you in the slightest, in which case why should you change anything? It’s up to you, and the extent of your guilt – guilt generated not by science or scientists, but by your own reaction to the information before you. The science will be the same whatever you decide.
Relevant story from the BBC: “US seeks G8 climate text changes“.
