MAYBE something came of the trip to the United States to investigate climate change by family first Senator Steve Fielding. He might even have become convinced that the Earth is round.
Overall, however, his trip has revealed a sad lack of understanding of the scientific method and confirmed some sad truths about human nature. We know that the creed of his Assemblies of God Pentecostal church states that the Bible is true and authoritative and therefore rules out the acceptance of evolution. So acceptance of the science of climate change was always going to be a tall order.
It seems bizarre that a person can accept belief in the tenets of the Pentecostal church for which there is not a shred of evidence, yet cannot accept the conclusions of piles of scientific evidence about climate change. Incidentally, the tenets of the Pentecostal church include a belief that talking in tongues can reveal religious truth.
I say “seems” bizarre because, in reality, it is not such an extraordinary thing. Unfortunately, it is in human nature to cling to old beliefs and be reluctant to accept the new no matter what the evidence.
Indeed, it is often the case that very intelligent people will cling to their old ideas with greater tenacity and the less intelligent. This is because intelligent people often are skilled at marshalling arguments in favour of their beliefs and cement them in. They convince themselves and constantly reinforce it. Once those arguments are marshalled, it is not in human nature to later admit earlier error.
The task before scientists now, if they want to save the world from what seems to be increasingly inevitable huge damage from climate change, is to concentrate not so much on the science of climate change but on the science or psychology of persuading people to give up positions that they have previously held. It takes courage for someone to give up a previously held position, especially if it has been put publicly.
The science is now clear. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased. It can be physically measured. It is equally compelling that it got there through the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of forests.
Slightly less compelling, but of high probability, is the proposition that the planet is in fact warming. And slightly less compelling, but of equal high probability, is the proposition that the extra carbon in the atmosphere is causing that warming.
Three other propositions have high probability verging on the compelling. The first is that once the carbon gets into the atmosphere it will be well-nigh impossible to get it out again in the short or medium term. The second is that if the planet warms there will be catastrophic results for humanity, a major one being rising sea levels which will swamp the major cities. The third is that the cost of reducing carbon emissions will be far less than the cost of not doing so.
It is a bit like having a large gum tree near the house. The trunk is leaning towards the house. The branches are over the roof. Sure, it may not fall for a very long time. It may fall harmlessly elsewhere. It may fall in manageable dribs and drabs. The homeowners can go through any number of delusional justifications for doing nothing. But the fact is that it is highly probable that the house is going to be profoundly damaged before too long. And to do nothing is stupid.
The scientists who have known this stuff since about 1985 must be perplexed at the lack of action. But in a way they should not be. It has taken about 500 years for the bulk of humanity to accept the truth of the proposition that the world is round. 150 years after Darwin, it seems that fewer than half of the population of the developed world accepts the compelling propositions of evolution.
Further, a significant proportion of the population refuse to accept the link between smoking and cancer and pockets of people believe in bizarre conspiracy theories that man did not land on the moon or that the 9/11 attacks did not occur and so on.
So, tragically, we may be asking a bit much for politicians to come up with, and voters to accept, rational policy responses to scientists’ publication of increasing knowledge and understanding of the physical world.
Another difficulty is the misunderstanding of the scientific method. Many non-scientists imagine that scientists go from thought to hypothesis to data to proof. So in all science you get a series of immutable scientific laws such as Dalton’s law of pressure; Faraday’s laws of electrolysis or Newton’s law on gravity.
In physics the level of proof can be extremely high, because you can repeat experiments. In mathematics you can get certainty. But in other sciences, especially the predictive ones where the re-run is impossible (like climatology), you can only get probabilities that you accept until or if some better explanation comes along. So non-scientists must stop the chant of we want proof beyond all doubt before we act. There is no final proof. We cannot prove that smoking causes lung cancer, but we have so much evidence of correlation that it would be perverse not to accept that it does.
(Incidentally, Fielding relied a lot on the Heartland Institute for his climate “information”. That institute puts out material about how smoking is not harmful to your health and gets money from tobacco and fossil-fuel industries.)
Equally, we now have so much evidence on climate change that, in the face of the likely consequences, it would be perverse not to accept it and do something about it. It would also be selfish and immoral. I suppose you can understand the selfish. They make money from fossil fuel now and the next generation can burn. And, I suppose, it is too much to expect them to be honest about it.
True, no-one should throw away reasonable scepticism. Yes, scientists have been wrong in the past, but usually only at an individual or limited level. However, with climate change, as with evolution, the geologic time scale, and the link between smoking and cancer among other things, the knowledge and understanding is nearly universal among reputable scientists. Moreover, the material is there for the non-scientist to read and judge.
There is a difference between scepticism and obstinacy. It is wrong to call those who do not take climate change seriously “climate sceptics”. They are not. They are stable-climate believers. They are straw-clutchers – “climate change is a temporary phenomenon caused by cosmic rays and sun spots”. They are relying on faith, not reason, for their position. And it is a dangerous faith.
It may not matter a huge amount if some people think that smoking and ill-health are not related, or that man did not land on the moon. But rejection of the need to respond to climate change is different. It will affect us all.
The problem now is not that we have done insufficient scientific work on climate change, but that we have not done enough work on human psychology and broad education about the scientific method.
1) For a different view on what to do about global warming, I suggest you read “Cool It” by Bjorn Lomborg. His basic thesis is that yes there is evidence for climate change, and yes it may be anthropogenic, but a) the effects are not as dire as some predictions (eg your statement that rising sea levels will swamp major cities) and b) to combat the effects there are more cost effective methods, and methods more likely to yield success, than trying to get the governments of the world to agree to reduce CO2 emissions.
2) I agree that Senator Fielding is a bit of a worry for believing in all that god stuff, but then so is Kevin Rudd, and the whole tribe who traipse into the Chambers and have a chat with their invisible friend (Prayers in the senate and reps) before governing the country.
3) You have touching faith in what scientists say (not that they speak with one voice anyway). The process of getting papers published is one of back scratching ones peers, and if the majority find it respectable to hold a particular view, that view will tend to prevail, through citations, grant applications and review for publication. Scientists depend upon this system for their livelihood. The days of the gentleman scientist of independent means ended around the time of James C Maxwell (a very notable holder of dissident views in his time).
4) Play the ball, not the man
Hi Crispin
I usually enjoy your contributions to the Canberra Times, but today’s was an exception. I have yet to see you dismiss all Kevin Rudd’s statements of “facts” on climate change or anything else because he is a practising Anglican, yet you dismiss everything Fielding says on Climate Change because he is a practising Pentecostalist.
Then you say there is “high probability … that the planet is in fact (sic) warming”. But is it? Both Hansen’s GISS and the UK’s Hadley say yes. Hansen claims his global temperature “data” go back to 1850 – ah yes, I forgot Livingstone’s astonishment as he traversed central Africa c 1850-1870 how in every native village he found a fully functiong met. station transmitting its daily weather data by email to the much younger Hansen at NASA. Seriously, NOAA (not Hansen) does provide maps showing world coverage of met. stations since 1850; until 1900 there were none anywhere in Africa except Egypt. Morocco, and the Cape. Then and now Africa is and was hot, from Cape to Cairo, so all global temp. data using 1850-1900 as base presents as COOL. That means the GISS claim of a rise of 0.7 oC rise from 1900 to now is b/s. There has in all likelihood been NO rise, perhaps even a fall. Who knows? – not you or Hansen.
You then rubbish the Heartland Institute for the data it provided to Senator Fielding by alleging that it promotes the view smoking is not harmful to one’s health. Actually it is known for questioning the view that passive smoking is as bad – or nearly – as smoking itself, for which the evidence is much less convincing. Its Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) Report (2009) is a mine of peer-reviewed information, most notably the 200 pages it has on the biospheric uptakes of CO2 emissions (by land and sea vegetation), on which the IPCC could find room for only a couple of pages out of over 2,500 in its AR4 (2007). Should I dismiss your views when the CT runs ads. for say alcohol and gas guzzling cars?
The FAO has been reported today as saying that 1 billion of the world’s population is going hungry. You have forgotten if you ever knew that reducing CO2 emissions (currently over 10 GtC) by as much as 90% from the 2000 level (Garnaut) (to less than 2 GtC) takes them below today’s 6 GtC of absorption of emissions by the global biospheres; that uplift accounts for nearly 60% of current emissions, and explains much of the large if apparently still inadequate growth of world food production since 1960. But applying a fraction of the funds proposed by Rudd & Wong & Obama for CCS to raising cereal yields in most of Africa above the current 10-20% of the North American norms would not only raise the uplift to above 60% of current emissions and but also feed some of the FAO’s billion. Ah! I forgot that WWF, ACF, Greenpeace, et al. (and you?) prefer to see people starve in favour of their and your Pentecostal belief in a caveman lifestyle.
Your denunciation of religion continues apace. However I would inform you that many Christians are very concerned about the natural environment.The Bible (which you don’t like) tells us that God created the world and its contents and saw that it was all very good. But why has it become bad? In simple terms, humanity has messed it up, or having been entrusted with caring for the environment, individuals have pursued their own interests and carelessly damaged it. The likely consequences of this, namely what the Bible calls sin, is the potential destruction of humanity and the world as well, or huge damage (to quote your expression).
Regardless of my psychological condition, I find it interesting that current science, in which you place so much faith, is indicating exactly the same outcome for the prevailing situation as ancient, and supposedly ignorant people centuries ago. Perhaps science and religion are complementary after all.
_____________________________
chockers with invective and rhetoric and irrelevant asides; but where’s the substance? Missing. The ‘science’ of climatology is unable to recreate the past, ignores the present, and is, as each day goes by, less and less likely to be relied upon to predict the future.
As I say to anyone and everyone who promotes the theory of anthropogenic global warming: give me ONE proof. Just one. I’m still waiting. . .
Crispin! Thank you so much for this article! I’ve actually cut this out of the CT to save. You have finally articulated the current issue facing those pushing for action to be taken on climate change, whilst at the same time, sadly, highlighting the severe challenge we face to have this movement accepted by the general public. I must admit though, it does seem to be a result of a lack of translating scientific definitions into equivalent common language. As you touched on, words like “theory” and “proof” have different meanings between the world of science and common, public, use and then the acceptance of scientific results suffers as a result, but neither science nor the public are to blame for this. Unfortunately,people will continue to hide behind these words to prevent government action that will hurt their interests, or even spiritual beliefs.
Again, thank you for the article!