Credibility

Sir, SP Jackson takes particular issue with my defence of the scientific consensus on climate change but offers little of real significance to warrant a change of view to a more sceptical one.

First he or she takes the well-trodden path of a court lawyer, which is to undermine the credibility of the key witnesses. SP Jackson believes climate scientists pursue their work mainly for their own personal interest, comfortable salaries and professional reputation. Their ‘ambition’ for such career rewards means that they are susceptible to ‘peer pressure to think within a consensus.’ Even if this is true of some individuals it stretches credibility beyond breaking point to believe that the thousands of climate scientists from dozens of different countries and numerous professional bodies, as well as the 30 years of work by the IPCC are all, either unconsciously or deliberately, self-selecting favourable data and down playing seriously conflicting information simply to serve their own ends, while misleading the world on an issue of huge importance. (Has SP Jackson met any climate scientist I wonder?)

Besides representing an incredibly low view of our fellow man it is the reason science moves forward by a system of publishing scientific papers so that data gathering and handling, along with its interpretation and conclusions can be openly examined and tested by others. This process tends to iron out the imperfections of human nature and although not perfect, a strong consensus is usually evidence of reliable and sound work, yielding conclusions that can be trusted with a high degree of confidence.

It is simply not credible to believe that the whole Climate Science community worldwide lack the basic integrity or self-awareness that would be needed to maintain such a massive deception and distortion of the scientific conclusions.

The second line of argument SP Jackson proposes for rejecting this huge worldwide consensus on Climate Change is that on certain assumptions and chosen time frames it can be argued that global average temperatures have not risen appreciably over the past decade or more.

However, each of the last three decades was warmer than any other decade since widespread thermometer measurements were introduced in the 1850s. In addition, it is not expected that average global temperatures should rise evenly over time and furthermore, there are other indications of a warming climate such as melting ice caps, receding glaciers, more intense and more frequent extreme weather events and the earlier arrival of spring in the northern hemisphere.

Given the changes being observed in the world’s physical environment it would be premature to assume that the climate is not actually warming over the long-term and will not warm appreciably in the future, due to rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused by human activity. The evidence still points strongly to a warming climate.

The third reason why SP Jackson believes we should reject the scientific consensus on climate change is because insufficient weight has been given to the complexities and uncertainties of the data. It is undeniably true that the whole area is fiendishly complex and defies brief and easy treatment, but that is not to say that certain conclusions cannot be drawn with a relatively high degree of confidence.

For example, that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap the sun’s heat and that an undeniable degree of warming has been observed from pre-industrial levels, which is reflected in the observable physical environment and which the scientific climate models confirms is due to increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere put there by man.

The consensus on this is very high and the predictions of possible future warming should be of the utmost concern to everyone. It is impossible to exaggerate just how serious this could prove to be to those who follow us and the fact is we do not have the luxury of a few decades to see how this will work out in reality. Alarming threats are never pleasant or comfortable and denial is a common human response.

Indeed we all know that sometimes people will put off going to the doctor because they prefer not to have their fears confirmed. We can all agree this is not a wise way to deal with threats or fears.

Nevertheless, if you are not persuaded by the scientific consensus on climate change then, of course, remain sceptical. There are many very good reasons other than climate change for making the transition from a carbonbased economy to renewables and that is all that truly matters in the end. A low carbon economy would arguably be more stable and equitable, as well as contribute to a healthier planet and happier society, than our current grossly inefficient, centralised, polluting energy system, based on big corporate coal, oil and gas.

Harvesting energy from the environment, caring for creation and living within the limits of its ecological systems would both honour God and our neighbour. It would not lead to a meltdown in the economy and it makes sense from many angles. So whatever we decide on the vexed question of climate, let’s agree together as a society to cut the carbon and back the switch to clean, natural, local and renewable energy sources for our future growth and development of the human family on earth.

The Rev Steve Paynter, Ealing