Our changing climate

People who have followed this blog for a while will know that I am uncertain about climate change: about its extent, about the 'science' by which conclusions are being drawn, about the way public (non-)debate is taking place and about what we should or shouldn't do in response to our changing climate.

Being uncertain is okay. But, of course, it's not a strong position for those in public life to hold. This article by Senator Stephen Fielding, about his recent fact-finding trip to the US, is worth a look. He writes pretty well for an engineer ;-).

Conscience and context

My conscience has gotten the better of me: In my previous post, I would have been fairer to quote the rest of the paragraph from The Garnaut Report, which concludes as follows (in italics):

...there is a great deal of uncertainty about the magnitude of the effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions on science. The scientifically reputed ‘sceptics’, to the Review’s understanding without exception, accept that an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in itself leads to warming (Lindzen 2008). The ‘sceptics’ variously contest the relationship between human-induced anthropogenic emissions and atmospheric concentrations, or the relative importance of the enhanced greenhouse effect and other factors that influence climate (ch. 3 "The Science of Climate Change", in Garnaut Climate Change Review: Draft Report, pp. 47-8)

Context
A letter to the editor in last weekend's Oz helpfully described the political (and, hence, to a large extent, public?) context for discussion about climate change:

The previous government failed in the early years of its term to promote a public scientific conversation on the issue. This created a vacuum which was dutifully filled by Labor's feverish preaching on climate change, presenting it as the great moral challenge of our time rather than a global scientific issue.
As the Rudd Government now grapples with an emmissions trading scheme ("Carbon Load to be spread", 27/6), we have the absurd situation where any suggestion of reviewing or tempering our approach is shouted down as the words of skeptics and non-believers -- as it was in federal parliament this [last] week...
James Baird
North Melbourne, Vic

If Mr Baird is hinting that science and morality occupy completely different realms -- and I'm not sure he is -- then I think that's a false dichotomy. Nevertheless, I'm sympathetic to his assessment.

Opinions?

In search of climate change science

By a strange series of events, last Monday I found myself listening to Ross Garnaut on the Perth leg of his Climate Change Roadshow. (A "strange series of events"? Let's just say at 9 am I was jogging in to the city with a friend, and soon after 10 am, having jogged from the Perth Town Hall back to Hyde Park, where my car was parked, and done a superman-like change into jeans and jumper, I found myself sitting in a room with a few-hundred suits listening to Professor G. wax lyrical -- if it's possible to wax lyrical about climate change and the global economy.)

Anyhow, the good professor impressed me. After 30 to 40 mins of his 'sell', about an hour was allocated for questions. "I wan't you to direct the discussion; take it into areas that are important to you," was, more or less, his invitation to questions from the audience.

The way he handled people's questions -- not to mention the everpresent axe-grind-thinly-disguised-as-a-question, of which there were far, far too many -- was also impressive. Here was a man who clearly had his head around the innumerable possible economic, social and political implications of this CC beast. I should also add that, as well as his answers being substantial, Garnaut was polite (perhaps even gracious).

For me, there was an elephant in the room. And, very early in his presentation, Garnaut showed us the elephant's trunk. The elephant? The science. To quote Chapter 3 of Garnaut's report:

Climate change policy must begin with the science. When people who have no
background in climate science seek to apply scientific perspectives to policy,
they are struck by the qualified and contested nature of the material with which
they have to work. Part of the uncertainty derives from the complexity of the
scientific issues. In the public discussion of the science, additional complexity
derives from the enormity of the possible consequences, which calls for a
millennial perspective. Part derives from the large effects of possible policy
responses on levels and distributions of income, inviting intense and focused
involvement in the discussion by those with vested interests.

The Review is not in a position to independently evaluate the considerable
body of scientific knowledge, and it is not the intent of this chapter to debate
the existence or extent of human-induced climate change.

In the terms introduced in Chapter 2, there is a great deal of uncertainty
about the magnitude of the effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions
on science.

I want to explore this mysterious pachyderm called the science of climate change.

Not being a scientist, I realise this will be a challenge. So, if any scientists reading this can explain the scientific issues involved, I'd be much obliged (plain English explanations preferred ;-]). Or, if anyone else, scientist or otherwise, knows of balanced and helpful stuff to read, please let the 'rest of us' know.

I have a preliminary list of hope-to-reads, which I will post soon.

PS Excuse the miniature font size of the quote!

Conquering the Carbon Footprint

Well, Rupert Murdoch isn't a climate change skeptic, as his speech at the Global Energy Initiative made clear.

Two things in the Oz's eight-paragraph "Cut & paste" excerpt caught my attention:

First, Murdoch's PR people have obviously been in his ear: "Our audiences - hundreds of millions of people on five continents - care about this issue. Three-quarters of the American public believes climate change is a serious problem."

And, second, as Murdoch, the shrewdest of shrewd businessmen knows, good PR equals good business. Twice in the Oz's summary he stated that being green-friendly was good business: "And as many companies have already learned, acting on this issue is simply good business. Reducing our use of energy reduces costs." And again: "when so many of the solutions make sense for us as a business, it is clear that we should take action, not only as a matter of public responsibility but because we stand to benefit."

Of course, overwhelming popular opinion and business profitability don't make a scientific case for global warming -- no matter how slick the rhetoric.

What did others make of Rupert's speech?

Another skeptic?

Janet Albrechtsen's writing is always vigorous and usually entertaining.

Her article, "Force-fed warming hysteria", in today's Australian, teased out one, possibly very scary, implication of swallowing the global warming position feathers and all -- i.e. the way children are taught about this issue.

I appreciate the call in her final paragraph for a more critical approach.

Science vs. Ideology

When conversations turn to climate change and global warming, I usually keep quiet. Mostly, it's for fear of getting my head bitten off; also, however, not being a scientist, I know that I don't have a grasp of the facts and figures -- the underlying 'science'.

But it's time to come clean: I am a skeptic. Though the cries of "the earth is doomed if we don't overhaul our ways" are loud and almost universal, I'm not convinced.

"What! Are you crazy? Do you not have ears to hear? Eyes to see?" I can hear you thinking. "Haven't you heard of Al Gore?"

My attitude is captured well in an excerpt in today's Australian. The words were those of Cory Bernardi, a South Australian Liberal Senator. Frankly, I was refreshed to hear such sense from a politician. Here's the closing line from the excerpt, in case you don't get to read the whole piece:

Meeting Australia's long-term environmental challenges requires practical solutions balanced with the needs of our economy, not knee-jerk populist reactions based on conflicting scientific evidence.

The article can be found at A call for cooler heads in the global warming debate .

I'd be glad to hear others' thoughts on this subject. But, please, be gentle with a man who has just 'come out'!