Back to basics in the climate change debate

IHAVE NOTED the recent spate of letters concerning the dangers of climate change. As is usual in such exchanges the contributors tend to talk past each other. The sceptics talk about the science or rather the lack thereof, while the alarmists ignore this. They declare that “the science is settled with a 97 percent consensus” and instead concentrate on the awful things that might happen if, in the distant future, their prophesies were to be correct.

The first problem is that by climate change the alarmists actually mean catastrophic anthropogenic (that is, manmade) global warming (CAGW, pronounced Cag-Wee). The change in name was triggered around 2007 by the realisation that the climate had failed to warm since about 1997 (and continued to do so).

The second is the wide range of opinions on the effects of man increasing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere. Warnings range from none to the extinction of mankind by 2100 and everything in between: both extremes postulated by (otherwise) respected and prominent scientists. However, it is the catastrophists you hear from to the virtual exclusion all other voices.

The third problem is the different, but generally overlapping, constituencies within the CAGW camp, of which there appear be five main ones.

First, there are the modellers who seem to crouch over their supercomputers, rarely looking outside to see what is actually happening in the real world. No one knows how the climate works, much is unknown and much, although known, cannot be quantified, and so values are parameterised (that is, guessed). Their projections (not predictions) have failed to forecast the actual changes in climate, but nevertheless remain the main plank of the CAGWgians case.

Second, are the climate scientists (CSs). Almost all CSs are employed in government funded institutions (directly or indirectly) and/or receive government grants. Since governments almost universally support CAGW, it is unsurprising that the majority of CSs are in agreement, the others either shut up or get out. The openly sceptical CSs are either tenured or retired and thus safe, except from repeated, vitriolic ad hominem attacks.

Third, are the true believers (TBs). There are, of course, many individuals, but the ones you hear from incessantly are the NGOs, especially the large international ones (turnover more than $2 billion (R26bn) a year). Most of the TBs have other agendas, often seemingly admirable (polar bears, birds, whales, coral reefs, the rainforests, etc, etc), which help to inflate their followings.

Fourth, are the ideologists. The most prominent are neo-Marxists, of various flavours, and their fellow travellers, who use “fighting” CAGW as a cover for their anti-capitalism. Other useful idiots include those concerned about “exhaustion of natural resources”, “overpopulation”, “lack of food”, “destruction of the environment” etc, etc. Then there are “back to nature”, “sustainability”, “anti-GMOs”, “organicfood”, “vegan” and many, many other advocates who also hitch their causes to the CAGW bandwagon. Finally, there the semireligious millenarian, apocalyptic, etc, fundamentalists, who have recently been joined by Pope Francis and the International Islamic Climate Change Symposium: a truly eclectic congregation.

Lastly, there are the politicians, financiers, fame-seekers and freeloaders. The politicians see more power, more taxes and more bureaucrats. The financiers have already created a $1.5 trillion a year industry out of CAGWgian fears, and are busy growing it. The fame-seekers are the horde of Hollywood type celebrities and assorted billionaires, who fly around the world in their private jets telling the plebs they must go green and, by the way, ride a bicycle – don’t fly. And there are all of the above, the freeloaders, who fly to meetings all over the world for free. Some are small and intimate, others the huge (10 to 20 plus thousand) annual jamborees at exotic places like Bali, Cancun, Rio, Paris, even Durban. Thus it is essential that people define their positions before any civil discussion can even start.

I am classified as being a “lukewarmer”, although I prefer realist myself. Declaration of interests: I was employed as a geologist by Anglo American until my retirement more than 20 years ago. As the result of a dissolved employee shareholder scheme I remain the owner of a small number of Exxaro shares. JOHN COLES BRYANSTON