In part 1 and part 2 of this series, it was shown that claims of a 'consensus' in the climate science community that our CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming are unfounded. In part 3, it was demonstrated that the most critical question for society is often not even addressed when scientists are polled. In part 4 and part 5, some of the joint statements from climate experts who disagree with official doctrine were listed and I focused on answering the question: "why have climate skeptics failed to convince mainstream media to cover the issue properly (also examining other barriers to gaining more public and academic support of our views)?"
In this, the concluding part of the series, I suggest a new, politically-neutral approach to the climate science debate that expands the tent of skeptics to include people of all political orientations.
On my flight to the UN climate conference in Copenhagen, I sat beside a U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) Arctic scientist, who was also going to the big show.After some awkward minutes during which each of us must have been wishing we could sit somewhere else, we made several important discoveries. First, it turned out that we shared the same moral compass concerning our obligations to the human and natural world, both present and future. We also agreed that the regular use of " ad hominem" and "motive intent" logical fallacies by both sides in the climate debate were offensive and inappropriate tools with which to judge scientific positions.Perhaps even more importantly, I learned that his father had just been diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease, a sickness my mother has suffered from for 18 years.What was in store for his father, he worried.The prognosis is usually bleak, I had to tell him, although there are certainly ways to prepare for the inevitable hard times.
Moving back to discussing climate, a new sense of cooperation emerged. The opposition had a human face after all, so both of us approached the conversation with a more open mind, finally determining that the source of our disagreement boiled down to one point -- whether or not carbon dioxide (CO
2), at its current level and above, is driving us towards dangerous global warming.
I maintained that it is probably not and that, as the Earth warms, the strongest feedbacks are now thought to be negative (i.e. these feedbacks cool the planet).The UNEP scientist did not agree, although his primary argument was based on an appeal to 'consensus', something which he finally accepted was actually unknown.
But the learning was mutual - the U.N. scientist gave me some important insights about our responsibilities to help the poorest countries prepare themselves to adapt to climate change, independent of the causes.His ideas helped me tune my approach to developing nations' delegates later at the conference.
While in Copenhagen (and since
then), I discovered that, within the left wing community, there is a growing doubt about the science underlying the climate scare. Since there were no hotel vacancies in Copenhagen by the time I made my bookings, I stayed in a finished attic of the house of an upper middle-class Danish family. After I made my reservations, I discovered that the husband and wife of the family were left-wing activists in Denmark and so I decided to keep the reasons for my attendance at the climate conference to myself. However, my landlords looked me up on the Web before I arrived and so knew all about ICSC's work, casually mentioning to me the morning after I got there that they were generally in agreement -- "but where is a left-wing climate skeptic to turn?", they asked.
At the climate conference itself, I discovered an entirely new constituency of thoughtful people who, while clearly not right-wing, were nevertheless open to hearing about alternative theories of climate change - the representatives of developing nations, especially the Africans as led by the Ethiopian delegation. These groups had come to Copenhagen hoping to obtain adaptation funding for their peoples, many of whom are suffering greatly, partly due to the impacts of climate change of one form or another.
Several of the delegates had little patience with the protesters outside the building who were focused almost exclusively on reducing greenhouse gases to spare the world from hypothetical impacts late in the 21
st century. "Don't these people understand that we are suffering right now and need help today?" one African delegate asked me. "The focus should be on helping our people adapt to climate change that is already happening!" (The fact that few of the protestors had ever worried about where their next meal was coming from and were advocating 'climate friendly energy solutions' that the poor could never hope to afford probably did not impress the African delegates either).
Yet, like most international meetings of this kind, by far the majority of financing being debated in Copenhagen was for programs to mitigate (i.e. slow or stop) climate change, not adapt to it. Even some who support the human-driven climate change hypothesis see this as backwards. For example, Frances Cairncross, then-President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (now the British Science Association),
said in 2006, "Adaptation policies have had far less attention than mitigation, and that is a mistake ... Climate change is inevitable, and policies to help societies adapt to a warmer future are badly needed." (Historical climatologist and ICSC science advisor Dr. Tim Ball points out that a cooler climate is far more dangerous than a warmer one so policies to help societies adapt to colder conditions are even more critical). The protesters on the streets of Copenhagen seemed not to understand a fundamental premise
explained well by Cairncross: "... global poverty is likely to diminish as the world economy continues to expand. So being fair to future generations is partly about whether to put the needs of today's poor ahead of tomorrow's less poor."
Two of the African delegates I spoke with were qualified environmental scientists and they told me confidentially that they did not actually believe the CO
2/dangerous global warming hypothesis. "But the negotiations for adaptation and mitigation are linked and so, if we want one, we need to support the other," they explained.
Negotiations for legally binding mitigation actions failed in Copenhagen and so solid agreements for adaptation funding mostly went down the drain as well. In preparation for the next major UN climate meeting in November in Mexico, developing nations must insist that mitigation and adaptation negotiations be separated. Otherwise they are likely to go home empty handed again since attaining agreements on legally binding emissions control is exceptionally difficult (and, of course, generally useless, in contrast to adaptation which is how successful human societies have always responded to climate change).
Recognizing that there is always a finite limit to the funds available for climate-related projects, it is not surprising that those seeking adaptation support would be open-minded to hearing that the science that underlies mitigation actions is in doubt. Many delegates would already see that keeping mitigation and adaptation negotiations locked together is greatly reducing their chances of getting significant adaptation assistance and this may explain their receptiveness to the ICSC's
Copenhagen Climate Challenge that I handed out throughout the U.N. event. While their leaders were, and still are, trying to use guilt to cajole adaptation funds out of more wealthy nations (i.e. "you caused the problem so you have a moral obligation to compensate us"), others in these delegations obviously are aware of the risk of continuing to tie their fortunes to a sinking ship.
Finally, delegates from Africa and other developing nations realize by now that any future international mitigation deals would have to include their own countries, something they simply cannot accept while pulling their peoples out of poverty using the cheapest form of energy available - fossil fuels. The last thing they want to hear is that they cannot use their coal, oil and natural gas because of an unproven and highly improbable climate hypothesis.
It is now imperative to expand the tent of supporters of realistic climate policy
There are clearly many people around the world who would welcome an end to the climate scare. But for that to happen any time in the near future, we need an entirely new approach to the climate science debate -- an approach that is neither left nor right but based simply on real scientific evidence and a common interest in protecting the environment while fostering human progress. Those following this new approach must be critical and supportive of the points of view of others based solely on what they say, not who they are or what they represent. If we are to quickly 'expand the tent' of supporters of realistic, science-based climate policies to include citizens of many different political persuasions, social philosophies and commercial interests, then logical fallacies and personal attacks on the integrity of our opponents must end. This will be very difficult for some who have based much of their activism on
trying to disgrace their opponents or support (or never criticize) their political friends. But the rest of society needs to move past this adolescent phase into a more effective and mature period when, for the sake of accomplishing our common objective, we work even with those who, in other spheres, may be our opponents.
There will of course be endless arguments about what to do with the vast sums saved by cancelling wasteful programs to 'stop climate change', but, much as we worked with the Communists to defeat an even more deadly adversary 70 years ago, those from the left, right and center must work together today to put an end to the exceptionally dangerous climate scare. As long as opposition to the CO
2/dangerous global warming hypothesis is seen to be primarily the domain of right of center, free enterprise, Republicans and other conservatives, as is usually the case today, then draconian and absurd laws will continue to menace society, wasting vast sums and destroying millions of jobs worldwide.
Encouraging this vitally needed strategic change is one of the primary purposes of the
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and the national affiliates we are helping found worldwide. The main project ICSC has focused on since early June is the "
Climate Scientists' Register", an apolitical, pure science statement that we expect will be endorsed by hundreds of experts (we now have 131 signatories who have significant expertise in understanding the causes of climate change). The Register statement is very simple:
"We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
In contrast to other public statements by scientists (see
here for an overview of what ICSC is doing differently), this single sentence says nothing about the economic, moral or social implications of CO
2 controls and so should be acceptable to the many 'pure' (and often left-wing) scientists who have yet to publically express their views. It is a statement that, once endorsed by large numbers of leaders in the field, can be used by media and politicians of any political persuasion to justify a transfer of funds from enabling useless CO
2 controls to whatever other programs they support or, who knows, perhaps even taxing us less.
Public uncertainty about the science backing the global warming scare is higher now than at any time in the past 20 years. However, this doubt will likely soon be quelled by well-funded, carefully orchestrated propaganda from the U.N., climate activists, governments and their allies in mainstream media and vested commercial interests unless new, more effective strategies are enabled to help average citizens understand that their scepticism is well founded -
many professional scientists, highly qualified in the field, also do not support forecasts of human-caused climate disaster. For governments to really take notice of the arguments of these experts, it must become common knowledge in the general public that literally thousands of climate experts, from many countries and from all political persuasions do not support the climate scare. That is the ultimate goal of ICSC's "
Climate Scientists' Register".
