My initial reaction on reading “The Global Warming debate” in May’s The Month was one of horror and disgust. However it soon dawned on me that you have a great sense of humour and that this piece was probably initially destined for the 1 April edition – but didn’t make it for some reason.
The problem however is that many people believe anything that is written in newspapers. Anonymous pieces like this are unfortunately one of the many techniques used by the denialist industry. This is regardless of whether it concerns the tobacco industry, AIDS or, in this case, climate change. Articles like this will often include:
- quoting an “expert” who refutes the conventional wisdom. Augie Auer was, in this case, a popular TV weatherman in New Zealand and meteorologist (i.e. weather specialist) rather than climatologist (i.e. climate specialist). He was a prominent member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition – a group committed to casting doubt about climate change. Unfortunately he died in 2007 so didn’t have the benefit of seeing the massive amount of evidence that has been generated over the last few years.
- Denouncing a scientist who has made a mistake – and then use that as ‘proof’ that the whole theory is therefore invalid. Given that there are now thousands of people (if not tens of thousands) studying climate change in some form it would be miraculous if someone, like Michael Mann in this case, hadn’t made a mistake. It doesn’t however invalidate the rest of the research, much of which has been peer-reviewed and is beyond challenge.
- Throwing in a suggestion of a conspiracy theory or in this case “..to satisfy a political agenda”.
- Distorting a few facts. Sure, the “urban heat island effect” (i.e. higher temperatures around man-mad structure than would otherwise have been present) can distort temperatures around cities. However this doesn’t explain why temperatures at the poles are rising much faster than the global average. There is also a logic breakdown here: if the urban heat island effect is causing higher readings, how can one then say that mankind isn’t responsible for some of the warming that is taking place?
The purpose of these objections is simply to create enough doubt in people’s minds that they choose not to take action. Which is usually an easier option than, say, giving up smoking, fighting AIDS or taking action on climate change.
However in contrast to this type of ‘denialism’ I believe that a healthy dose of skepticism, when it comes to forecasts, is usually appropriate. No climate expert can claim to know what all the effects of a warmer climate will be. All they can do is base their forecasts on what has happened during past warm periods. Bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are very careful to suggest a range of possibilities when it comes to temperature predictions, sea level rises etc.
So to deny climate change just because the future is not certain is like a smoker saying “I’m not going to give up unless you can tell me exactly when I’m going to die, and of exactly what causes”. Like smoking, the dangers of global warming are dire and no longer questioned by mainstream experts. And while there have been numerous warm periods in the past, they have never occurred with a global population of over 6.5 billion. So, in a world already struggling with a shortage of food and water, even small climate changes could be disastrous for millions, if not billions, of people.
But hey, we’ll be OK. We can always jump in the SUV, crank up the aircon and go somewhere cooler. Or as one of Augie Auer’s colleagues was quoted as saying: “I don’t give a stuff for future generations. They can take care of themselves. It’s immoral to care for someone who hasn’t been born yet”.
With best wishes
Jeremy Bolton
p.s I’m very conscious that my opinion is clearly not that of an expert climatologist. Fortunately we have some world renowned experts on climate change a mere local phone call away. People like Prof Harald Winkler of UCT”s Energy Research Centre or Dr.Guy Midgley of the SA National Biodiversity Institute. If you’re going to run articles on climate change you should get them to contribute - they’re the real thing.