In today’s The Age Geoff Strong repeats federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell’s announcement of last week in The Australian, and Tim Flannery’s recommendation in The Weather Makers, that we should stop debating the science of global warming and just accept a human influence on climate.
But why would a secular society that respects evidence and the scientific process ever stop researching and debating an issue as important as climate change?
Let’s say we all broadly accepted the pronouncements of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Tim Flannery’s and Geoff Strong’s of the world – that is we all broadly accepted anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Wouldn’t we nevertheless still encourage debate and discussion and fund scientists to continue to scrutinize the emerging theories and test the predictions?
We still fund scientists to challenge and debate Einstein‘s Theory of Relativity.
As I understand it, the difference between science and a religion is that the latter is essentially faith-based. There is no real potential for debate of the core issue. Growing up in a Christian community I’ld always been told belief in God is ultimately a question of faith.
I am an atheist, however, I respect those who believe in God and I don’t challenge their belief, because I understand that it is ultimately a question of faith.
Is this how we want to proceed with global warming issues? If this is the case then let’s remove the discussion from the discipline of science and let us proceed as we might with an issue of faith.
I hear the followers of Tim Flannery et al say, but Jennifer, it is not that we don’t want discussion, it is just that if there was less debate there would be more action.
Really? As far as I can tell we’ve got Kyoto and while the Australian government hasn’t signed up it is intent on meeting its Kyoto targets.
Furthermore, neither the Prime Minister of Australia nor the President of the United States have recently denied the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Quite the contrary! Didn’t President Bush go along with all the rhetoric at the recent meeting in Scotland? Prime Minister Howard just says it doesn’t make economic sense – he doesn’t argue the science. If the Australian Conservation Foundation and a few others weren’t so opposed to nuclear power we could start putting in place plans to swap from coal to nuclear etcetera and really do something about the rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. There are no shortage of real technical and political options all of which will have economic and environmental implications.
Couldn’t one of more of these options be pursued while the debate about the science of climate change was encouraged?
Unless we want to insist that AWG is a core belief – a faith – then criticism and debate should really be encouraged?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“Couldn’t one of more of these options be pursued while the debate about the science of climate change was encouraged?”
You’d think so. The hard parts – at least for some people – are distinguishing ‘debate’ from obfuscation, and distinguishing the meaningful pursuit of options from lip service and greenwash.
—-
Nuclear would steamroll over the ACF and the green movement if they were the only thing standing in the way…. but they aren’t. Nuclear doesn’t happen primarily because it is too expensive and unworkable, and the govt isn’t providing enough impetus through greenhouse reduction measures to change that picture. How easy do you think it is to build a squillion dollar nuclear power plant and matching waste disposal facility that is double or more the price of coal power?
Jennifer – There is no ‘faith’ in AGW. Global Warming is a scientific theory based on evidence – no faith needed.
The ‘faith’ part, for want of a better word, is the results of Global Warming. Will the climate change, will the icecaps melt, will there be more hurricanes?
Rather than call it faith, as that brings in the illusion that somehow there is the element of religious belief needed, call it risk assessment. The IPCC and others such as the insurance industry, when they do risk assessments based on AGW science, can see that there is a signiicant risk of adverse effects from AGW.
Calling it faith puts AGW in with religions that believe in beings or entities that no physical evidence exists to prove that they exist. They need faith to believe in them.
AGW is firmly based on scientific evidence. The results of AGW are less firmly based. however as risk assessments they incorporate all the science of AGW to guess intelligently at the future.
Also as a science there is healthy and continuing debate into AGW as there should be. Accepting that there is a risk and deciding to act does not mean that the issue is settled. It simply means deciding, with the best information that you have at the time, to take action. It does not and should not stop the debate and research.
It would take a lot of faith for me to believe in a political instrument of the UN.
“Couldn’t one of more of these options be pursued while the debate about the science of climate change was encouraged?”
Indeed, after lengthy negotiations at Kyoto we agreed on a set of options to be pursued, while the debate about the science of climate change was encouraged. The problem is that Bush and Howard have refused to adopt these options and have put up nothing concrete in their place.
More generally, to pursue your discussion of relativity, we encourage debate on questions like this, but we take action on the basis of the best available scientific judgement, which in this case says AGW is real and a major problem.
There is plenty of evidence to support many religions, viz the catholic church applies a rigorous procedure of investigation before a holy person is canonised as a saint.
Based on some evidence religion is a fact.
rog – no religious miracle or presence has ever been measured on any objective instrument. Therefore all such ‘evidence’ is entirely subjective and not objective scientific evidence.
That is not to say that it does not exist, as there are more things out there than just science, however evidence of this sort cannot be classed with scientific evidence.
Following on from Steve and Johns comments … so does it come down to economics?
Australia and the US didn’t sign up to Kyoto because it would cost a lot and achieve little?
So why is the federal environment minister (and Tim Flannery) now suggesting the climate skeptics are all to blame and that there should be no more debate?
For those that believe that the heavens and the earth, the land and seas and all the plants and animals upon and beneath were created by a God who also instructed humankind to care for his beautiful planet by not abusing it, mistreating animals, wasting trees or squandering resources, take comfort from the greatness of your all-powerful creator – that life is unfolding exactly as it should.
For ye of little faith,
More generally, to pursue your discussion of relativity, we encourage debate on questions like this, but we take action on the basis of the best available scientific judgement, which in this case says AGW is real and a major problem.
“We” ???????
“Australia and the US didn’t sign up to Kyoto because it would cost a lot and achieve little? ”
That’s not my take on why Australia and the US didn’t sign Jennifer.
After all, Australia will meet its targets anyway. It will cost us more to meet targets without signing because we are potentially locked out of some carbon trading markets.
I’d say that
the US didn’t sign because energy industry interests successfully lobbied the bush govt.
australia didn’t sign because the USA, the Australian coal industry, and the Australian aluminium industry successfully lobbied the howard govt.
It’s not how much it costs that counts, it’s who it costs.
Steve,
Thanks for your comments.
I’m not sure I agree with you about costs.
But let’s consider the other side of the equation – benefit. I am interested to know what you think Kyoto could achieve for the environment if the US and Australia signed up. I understood that even with the US and Australia Kyoto is not going to significantly reduce atmospheric Co2 levels?
I agree that regardless of whether US and Australia sign up, Kyoto in its first will not solve the problem.
Everyone knows that.
And it doesn’t require a godlike intellect to know that you have to start somewhere.
WHen contemplating a long journey, you would laugh at someone who told you not to bother because your first step would take you such a trifling distance in your journey. Same thing here.
What is important is that we take a step in the right direction, and along the best path.
Emissions trading such as you would get under kyoto is widely regarded as a least-cost way of dealing with emissions, because it doesn’t favour a particular solution – it doesn’t involve picking winners. It sets up a structure and then lets the market determine the best solutions.
I scorn the Australian and US govt’s so-called ‘technology approach’ because it sounds suspiciously like thwarting the market and picking winners. In short, they probably just want to use greenhouse as an excuse to give money to the coal industry for clean coal, regardless of whether it is the best solution or not.
A technology neutral emissions trading scheme such as could be set up under kyoto would avoid many problems and pitfalls. The need for a debate about whether nuclear should be eligible for carbon credits would then be much more pertinent too.
Which costs of mine don’t you agree with? THe cost of nuclear energy? Or the cost of meeting a kyoto target without ratifying?
Assuming, of course, that CO2 produced by humans, is the fundamental forcing of climate change,
Jen by your logic airplanes would come with wings as optional extras (gravity cannot be proved) and cars might come with square wheels (who can prove that a round wheel will work better tommorrow, just because it works well today?).
Prehaps you might provide us with some evidence to support the belief that humans are not changing the climate – afterall an ongoing debate needs contrary evidence to be sustained?
David
David, Don’t quite follow your logic. I accept carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that is increasing in concentration as a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels and is likely impacting on climate. The question for me is how significant is the impact and how expensive the ‘remedy’? But I am also quite happy to have even the basic premise challenged.
JEnnifer,
Try not to see action on greenhouse as a ‘remedy’, but rather as a scaling back of activity that created and continues to exacerbate the problem.
Steve, the scaling back of activity to what problem?
Some experts say man created 100% climate change others say 0%. Even the IPCC are unsure as to the quantity of the effect.
Why would you volunteer to undergo economic hardship when it may have 0% effect – is that reasonable? Surely known problems of disease, hunger, poverty and war are more pressing than an vague weather predictions.
I’m not aware of any experts that say 100%, or any experts that say 0%.
Maybe you define ‘expert’ differently from me.
rog – I assume you have house insurance or some other type. Why do you spend your income on such insurance when nobody can prove that your house will burn down?
Action on climate change is much the same as what insurance is – spreading the risk. Disease, hunger etc are important and should not be neglected however if all Australians starved to death the Earth will continue providing the rest of the Earths population with air and warmth. We have to divest ourselves of this fossil fuel addiction sometime anyway.
Continueing the house analogy you do not renovate your kitchen, assuming you cannot move house, while your floor beams are being eaten by termites.
Because I can prove that A house will burn down, my neighbour’s (about 1km away) house DID burn down.
We have horses and in summer we have storms with lightning strikes and horses are struck (last year 1 horse hit – dead- about 3 kms away) but we dont insure our horses as it is not cost effective.
I am not convinced that by spending money (giving it away – that goes against the grain!) will change the weather.
Can you prove that it will?
>David, Don’t quite follow your logic.
The main points is that there are numerous examples of debates which are effectively ended in public, despite it being impossible to prove the point. It comes down to probabilities…. this is science as compared to faith which is based on beliefs which cannot be tested, are not falsifiable, and do not have quantifiable probabilities. The IPCC has attached probabilities which are in the range of 90-99% that humans are responsible for much of the global warming since 1950. For most people, an informed concensus like that is probably good enough to effectively end a debate. Would you board a plane without wings knowing that there was a 5% change it couldn’t fly???
Of course if new evidence comes to light views can change, but we have had 100 years to overturn the enhanced greenhouse effect with no success, and global warming has been going unabated now for at least 30 years.
Perhaps you might provide us with the probability level that you would attach to the AGW before you think we should get on with the job, rather than simply sitting on hands and calling for more evidence.
More broadly, I suspect the debate alluded in the linked pieces is the fictional science debate currently being played out in the media and which has no parallel in the scientific literature. There is no science debate to end, as this effectively ended decades ago… and all that has happened since is a tinkering on the scientific edges.
David
rog – giving away money will not change the chances of your house burning down either just mitigate the risk. Reducing greenhouse forcing is much the same – it mitigates the risk of climate change.