Is there a spin attached to climatechange?

THE LETTER in yesterday’s Business Report by Dr Kelvin Kemm (Scientist) headlined “Real scientist don’t use foul language” refers. The stance expressed in Kemm’s letter is a reflection of the vested interests and spin that undermines the urgent global efforts to respond to climate change.

I note with interest that Kemm’s credentials as a qualified nuclear scientist should be weighed against his obvious vested interests as a prominent spokesperson for the nuclear energy industry (chief executive of Nuclear Africa, board member of GoNuclear).

I recall Kemm’s name from a previous exchange in which he downplayed the severity of the Fukushima disaster (www. cfact.org/2013/10/12/physicist-there-was- no-fukushima-nuclear-disaster), going so far as to claim the event was a demonstration of the remarkable safety of nuclear energy. However, I would rather respond to Kemm’s call for a debate based on science. Further, since it is unclear in Kemm’s letter whether he rejects the idea that the world’s climate is undergoing unusually rapid changes, or whether he only questions the role of humans in climate change, I would be glad to address both points.

Firstly, the claim that there is an equal split in scientific consensus on the existence of climate change can be roundly disregarded. A demonstrative reference is the summary study undertaken by Cook et al and published by Environmental Research Letters (John Cook et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024), freely available at http:// iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/ article.

The authors examined 11 944 abstracts from peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991 to 2011 matching the topics “global climate change” or “global warming”. They found that “66.4 percent of abstracts expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW)” (ie do not attempt to link anthropogenic activities with climate change), “32.6 percent endorsed AGW” (ie found positive correlation between human activity and climate change, 0.7 percent rejected AGW and 0.3 percent were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

The authors note that “among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”. Thus, Kemm’s insinuation that the jury is out smells more like lobbyist spin than rigorous scientific investigation – one does not need to be a scientist to understand that 97 percent is effectively a consensus.

As a nation and as a society, we can no longer be distracted by questions of “Is it really happening?” and should rather face the questions of “How to adapt?” and “How to reduce the severity?” of the changes experienced.