Strange but true: the number of people who doubt that climate change is human-caused has, if anything, increased in the UK and US over a period when uncertainties in the science have been narrowing. However to think that this is all down to radical libertarian thinktanks like the Heartland Institute or energy industry lobbyists is a dangerous distraction. Attempts to spin climate change have been going on so long they have their own historians: Oreskes and Conway’s Merchants of Doubt shows the similarities – and links – between the tobacco and climate story. But this is of the ‘Pope is Catholic’ category of news. To think that lobby groups and think tanks are the reason that plenty of people are at best ambiguous about climate change is to fail to understand how many of us feel about relatively new and demanding ideas about humanity’s relationship with its environment.
Globescan, Eurobarometer or recent Yale/George Mason University studies show polling that offers fairly consistent accounts: somewhere between 15 and 35% of people are not convinced climate change is happening and/or don’t believe it is human caused depending on the framing of the question. These can be read as ‘glass more than half full’ results, but it is impossible to build robust international political support for mitigation and adaptation policies without engaging more people with a good sense of the best available scientific thinking on the topic. But the words that are used to describe the negative feelings that a substantial minority of the population have about climate change science and policy may be part of the problem. Terms like sceptic, denier and contrarian are not just inaccurate, but more to the point, create a stark and false binary of ‘believers’ and ‘deniers’.
One of the most widely used phrases is climate sceptic. But scepticism is a part and parcel of any good research and journalism. Indeed we need all the scepticism we can get from researchers, policy analysts and journalists if humanity is going to do a good job of responding to new knowledge about the world. So let’s just say we’re all climate sceptics now and leave that phrase alone.
'There are many climate dyspeptics who are fearful about or irritated by the way climate issues have been presented in the media and with some good cause'
I’m mostly serious in suggesting a new term: climate dyspepsia. An ugly term for sure, but it is useful because it describes not a position but a condition. Certainly this seems to capture the anti-science, crotchety and closed-minded attitude of some sour cherry-picking bloggers and pose-striking journalists. But it also suggests much more widespread feelings of discomfort. It summarises the state people are in when they find all the talk about climate change science, policy or politics difficult to digest. I come over climate dyspeptic myself fairly often – probably because I spend quite a large proportion of my life working on the topic.
There are many climate dyspeptics who are fearful about or irritated by the way climate issues have been presented in the media and with some good cause. The climate research and policy communities need to be more considerate about how people feel about new knowledge about climate change. They also need to be more willing to trust people’s capacity to cope with more open accounts of complex long-term problems. Often this will not be about doing things differently but about naming them differently. There are three things that could be presented in a new way.
First the science of climate change needs to be told as a broad and unfolding process rather than a fixed result. People have a good nose for authenticity and know that over-hasty phrases like ‘the science is finished’ misrepresent the work. And what work it is: climate science includes some of the most ambitious questions that humanity has ever set itself – why is it so rarely experienced as such?
'It is remarkable, but too rarely noted, that almost all of the extraordinarily broad range of policy, business and community responses to climate change carry other benefits'
Second the policy response needs to be framed not as the pursuit of a single final UN agreement that arises out of a great big finished fact, but rather explained as a long term collective risk management process. Everyone who drives a car understands the need for rules about car insurance; everyone in a country with a health system understands the principle of collective risk burden sharing. In fact we tend to do more than tolerate these responses to risk: we treasure them. Climate change policy is no more than an extension of these principles. It is an idea that almost everyone can get behind. Politicians need to inhabit climate policy and not palm off their job on researchers who have a different job to do. Elected politicians have the legitimacy and responsibility to make decisions about the most substantial risks facing their societies and need to step into these big shoes.
Thirdly it is remarkable, but too rarely noted, that almost all of the extraordinarily broad range of policy, business and community responses to climate change carry other benefits. This is the fact that will make the political task achievable. Some of the most compelling developments in design and engineering of our age are at least in part catalysed by knowledge of climate change. Furthermore they are delivering improvements in the quality of everyday life and the long-term profitability and sustainability of business. So here’s a cheering thought: the things that people are actually doing about climate change can overcome the sickly feelings that can be brought on by all the talk of it.
For a follow up post to this one, see here.
Find out more:
Comments
I agree that the way climate change (and global warming) is communicated is of real importance. Research in this area is growing and insights into the ways in which people take on board new ideas (and realities) give communicators a great deal to think about. However, there are the findings from multiple lines of evidence and research that present something of a challenge. Whilst responding to climate change is an on-going process, with there being no fixed date when 'it' happens or ends, the physics and chemistry of he interaction between solar radiance and Earth systems are not going to wait until we reach some magical degree of acceptance. And it is not as if we can stop the trajectory these processes are on, we can not. But if we want to have a reasonable chance of retaining climatic conditions that are tolerable then meaningful action does have to start now.
I found Joe Smith’s article extremely distasteful; he takes the view that if you don’t believe in the “cause” you are either ignorant or in someone’s pocket! What is abundantly clear is that there is a great deal of climate science that it not well understood. The major plank of evidence for catastrophic climate change is multi- computer models based on very uncertain knowledge particularly with respect to climate sensitivity, periodic climate oscillations and second order changes in solar output with respect to magnetic and EUV changes.
There is I believe a valid scientific view that neither denies climate change has occurred or that it this is partially the result of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases and also that simple changes in total solar irradiance are insufficient to account for the observed climate change.
Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose effect changes logarithmically with concentration. Putting aside feedback responses the increase retained energy from the change CO2 levels since pre-industrial is now halve that of what would be expected from a doubling of CO2 concentration and would equate to a mean global temperature increase of 0.85 oC. This is the same temperature increase as has been observed over the last 150 years despite solar activity being at its highest for possibly 5000 years. There is an argument that feedback responses are slow and long term but over the last 12 years there has been no significant change in mean global temperature, despite CO2 concentrations increasing at the fastest rate in human history! This indicates that the Earth is at or very close to thermal equilibrium and that increasing CO2 concentration is not the overpowering driver of climate change that Joe Smith would like us to believe! On current observational evidence as opposed to computer models based on poorly understood science there is no basis to assume that increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases will lead to catastrophic climate change. On the contrary assuming, which is probably unlikely, that the sun continues in a very active phase the likely increase in GMST by doubling CO2 is probably less than 1 oC
I would find Joe’s views more palatable if he could provide an observational evidence based explanation as to why the IPCC’s forecast of an increase in mean global surface temperature of 0.2 oC per decade even if CO2 levels were held at 2000 levels are not being achieved. Perhaps an explanation as to where there are uncertainties in climate change science. Alternatively, tongue in cheek, perhaps an explanation of the advantage to society of the substantial subsidies required to fund ineffective wind farms, which despoil the countryside, require investment in back-up conventional power stations to provide energy when the wind isn’t blowing all to have a minimal impact on CO2 emissions?
I am neither a climate denier nor in anyone’s pay but a concerned scientist/engineer who is trying to come to a conclusion based on the evidence rather than the spin! However I do deny the infalability of the Pope and Climate computor forecasts!
There are a few problems with your analysis, Richard. First of all, you seem to only look at atmospheric temperatures on a short timescale (i.e. about 12 years). There's a lot of chaos within the system, therefore concentrating on relatively short periods of time tells us nothing about the potential effects of CO2 on climate - it's a pointless exercise. Also, if you look at all the heat sinks, you'll see that the Earth has carried on accumulating heat despite a deep solar minimum and one of the strongest La Niñas on record.
Solar activity has been flat or even declining for a few decades now and certainly cannot explain the recent rise in temperatures (particularly the past three decades or so). So I'm not quite sure why this is being included in your analysis - I'd appreciate some clarification.
As for observations, shouldn't we be looking at a bit more than the correlation between short-term temperatures changes and increases in CO2 concentrations in order to reflect the fact that many factors have an effect on average global temperatures? To draw conclusions based on CO2 alone doesn't reflect the complexity of the climate system and therefore can only offer an incomplete, and possibly incorrect, evaluation of the situation. Wouldn't you agree with that?
As for your tongue-in-cheek comment about wind farms, I think this is where the stumbling block for 'dyspeptics' always shows its face. Contrarians often don't like the policy implications of CO2 reduction, and therefore spend an awful lot of time trying to discredit climate science. In my opinion, time would be better spent thinking about solutions, especially with ocean acidification and peak oil on the horizon. I guess that's just my opinion but there is a clear distinction between climate science and policy, and that shouldn't be ignored.
Anne-Marie
Sorry I didn't reply sooner but I have been away for the last week. I agree with you that there is a lot of chaos in the climate system. You comment that 12 years is too short to make any judgement should be compared with the 20 years from 1978 to 1998 which apparently were sufficient to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that anthropogenic CO2 was / is causing catastrophic global warming!
I can find no evidence that over the last 12 years that the Earth has continued to accumulate heat for example look at global ocean heat content.
In analysing what is happening I think you should also study the decadal oscillations and you will see that there was a rising trend from 1910 to 1940 below not to mention the warm and cold periods that have occurred during the last 10,000 years Holocene period.
Another analysis was prepared by Scafetta N Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications Preprint submitted to J. of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics May 26, 2010
I agree entirely with your comment that we shouldn’t draw conclusions based solely on CO2 levels. Unfortunately that is the “consensus and agreed science” and the driver of so much Government and European policy.
Going back to solar activity I suspect we may be in for a period of 30+ years of very low solar activity as judged by sunspot magnetic activity and the similarity in solar system orbits and previous periods of solar inactivity which caused cold periods during the Holocene period.
I also think the concerns over “peak oil” are misplaced as the world has vast shale gas resources which are now commercially being exploited.
I tried to put some graphs in but the system wouldn’t accept them so I hope this makes sense to you?
Regards
Richard Baldwin
-->
With respect, I feel that Richard missed the point of the opinion piece. It is neither about being ignorant or in anyone's pocket, nor is the piece about the science itself. The article is about the language used and the presentation of information, suggesting that people are, in fact, able to make up their own minds and clever enough to understand the evidence, but that it would be beneficial for there to be a change in the way that the evidence and policies are presented, so that people are better able to apply their own discernment.
With the greatest of respect Reuben, what Joe Smith's article states is "Strange but true: the number of people who doubt that climate change is human-caused has, if anything, increased in the UK and US over a period when uncertainties in the science have been narrowing. "
The problem with science is that what we believe to be true today is probably going to be shown to be not quite true tomorrow. In the next few years, we may discover factors that may change our perception again about what is happening in our climate.
I believe scientists tend to have a complacency about discoveries because they want what they discovered to be true. In the absence of alternative evidence then we would seem silly to deny the evidence that exists even if it may not be proved to be siignificant evidence in the future.
I don't know the truth abot the climate but, as a mathematician, I would be very surprised in anyone is actually close to the truth and that we are all guessing. This does not mean that the guesses from the global warmists are wrong.