Climate science is now well established
IHAVE been following some of the debate on whether climate science is real or not for some time now on these pages. It is quite disingenuous for journalists and commentators with spurious scientific credentials to be portraying themselves as experts of climate science.
Climate science is now well established. The correlation between increased carbon dioxide emissions and the greenhouse effect is no longer in dispute. It is true predictions on the temperature rises with increase in parts per million of carbon dioxide have proven not to be entirely accurate as even complex modelling cannot replicate synthetically all the earth’s systems.
As James Lovelock points out, the models have yet to also incorporate the role of biological life in earth systems dynamics. Putting it another way, we do not know enough to draw always strong and more confident conclusions on the relation between increased carbon dioxide and climate variability to high levels of precision for every instance.
However, degrees of confidence have improved since the last IPCC report, AR5.
For instance this year we have had the highest recorded temperature ever seen for a long time in terms of global averages. The highest recorded in July was in Iran. But we have also witnessed the most dramatic and violent forms of hurricanes and tornadoes not experienced for a long time.
The frequency of adverse weather patterns may draw us closer to correlating these unusual patterns with increased release of carbon dioxide. More work is already going into this by the World Meteorological Organisation, the US’s National Oceanographic Atmospheric Association and others. We can no longer dismiss these unusual weather patterns as anomalies.
Sceptics and denialists abound. Some may be genuine sceptics as they are independently minded scientists interested in the truth and robust science. Others are not so. They are total frauds and lobbyists on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.
It is worth reading the ground breaking work of Naomi Oreskes, Merchants of Doubt, who does a fabulous exposé of climate denialists who are funded by the industry. They flaunt their scientific credentials to cast doubts on the mainstream view. Their objective is not good science but anti-science.
It is worth noting that these groups are in a minority. It is also not the first time that these manufacturers of doubt have been around. The good work of Clair Patterson, who researched the age of the earth using uranium and lead readings, is a case in point. He is now all but forgotten.
Patterson’s study on the age of the earth led him to confront the petroleum industry for their use of lead in fuel. Lead as we know today is toxic and harmful to human health. Patterson was ridiculed, his funds cut off and bullied into silence, but he prevailed and his scientific findings proved to be true.
This though came at a price – the manufacturers of doubt worked for profits and delayed the implementation of lead reduction measures. In that time many people succumbed to the harmful effects of lead.
As it was true for lead it was also true for tobacco smoking. This pattern of sowing doubt has a long pedigree as shown above.
All these case studies prove that what are made out to be scientific claims against well-established science are the dirty tricks and dark work of professional lobbyists working for corporations who do not want any action taken against climate change because they have profits to lose.
Our task is not to be distracted by their casting doubt, but to find ways to solve the challenge that lies before us. It also behoves us to use scientific evidence responsibly and part of that entails not exaggerating claims for which there is no clear evidence.
It is worth noting that these groups are in a minority. It is also not the first time that these manufacturers of doubt have been around.