Climate change denial is on the rise, encouraged no doubt by the example of that great intellectual President Donald Trump. That other intellectual giant Andrew Bolt had a crack at me recently for what I thought was the modest suggestion that we need to listen to what the scientists are telling us. Good on Bolt for his ability to take cheap shots from behind the shelter of the Murdoch press. But still, it was a cheap shot on an issue which deserves more serious attention. Trump may not have the intellectual rigour to think about these things, but Bolt might.
What drives people to question climate science is the desire to profit from exploiting coal resources. But what climate change sceptics like Trump and Bolt ignore is the precautionary principle.
If global warming is real, it threatens everyone. It raises questions about the viability of the human species on Earth. In simpler times, the worst consequences of global warming would threaten only a portion of mankind. However, the growing interdependence of all people means that a catastrophe in Western agriculture or in Chinese manufacturing or in the major trading cities will have consequences for practically every human being.
The solution to global warming is, primarily, a question of science. However, history shows us that scientific solutions are generally compromised by politics. Politicians in most nations are answerable to their people. Without careful leadership, the people of most nations will prefer their own interests ahead of others’ interests. This is true locally and globally. The refusal of Australia and the USA to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was a regrettable example: it was a triumph of selfish, insular concerns over the dictates of science and the interests of the entire world.
The debate about global warming is a useful illustration of the way politics and self-interest can damage public discourse. The 5th report of the IPCC is clear: global warming is real, dangerous, and to a significant degree the result of human activity. These findings are accepted as true by about 97% of the world’s scientists.
Some groups have a vested interest in slowing or stopping action to combat climate change. Big oil and the coal industry are obvious examples. They have a lot to lose, and delaying action on climate change serves their interests. The debate, unfortunately, has tended to focus on sniping at specific facts identified by the IPCC. And some people, quite correctly, argue that science is not decided by democratic majority.
Morgan polls indicated that in 2008 about 35% of Australians nominated the environment as a major issue: by 2013 this had fallen to 7%. The debate shifted from acceptance to doubt to indifference. What is staggering about the shift is that it ignores the seriousness of the problem itself.
If climate scientists are right, we have less than 5 years in which to act on climate change. Even Tony Abbott eventually acknowledged that climate change is real and (at least in part) anthropogenic. Even so, it must be noted that his chief business advisor, Maurice Newman, denied climate change as did some members of Abbott’s cabinet.
Turnbull seems to have thrown his hat in the ring with the fossil fuel industry, so if he has any concerns about climate change, he has subordinated them to his political survival.
If climate scientists are wrong and, of course, they might be wrong, then we will spend a lot of money for no advantage. But if they are right…
Suppose there is an 80% chance that all the scientists are wrong (that is, only a 20% chance they are right). If we do nothing about climate change there is only a 20% chance of an avoidable catastrophic outcome.
But that is worse odds than Russian roulette. In Russian roulette, a revolver with 6 chambers has just one bullet in it. When you hold the revolver to your head and pull the trigger, you have a one chance in six of a bad outcome. One in six is more favourable odds than on in five
It may be objected that, in Russian roulette, you hold the gun to your head, and if the one in six chance goes against your child, then the child dies. If climate science is right, we won’t all die. OK, so try playing Russian roulette with your children, but hold the gun to their stomach: if the one in six chance goes against your child, it’s not fatal, just dangerous and very painful.
Other arguments which support taking action just in case include: if you were told that 97% of engineers predicted that the bridge will collapse, will you walk across it? If the airline tells you there is a 97% chance that the plane will crash, will you nevertheless get on board?
Those who would withhold action on climate change (by denying it, or by extending the argument about the steps that should be taken, thereby delaying any action at all) are playing Russian roulette with our children’s future. But those who doubt will ultimately fall back on the idea that it is people in other countries who will bear the brunt of climate change. This idea is rarely articulated, because it is self-evidently unrespectable to say that other people’s suffering is less important than our own. But if anyone makes the argument, they are not only immoral, they are also wildly optimistic.
Julian, you write ‘These findings are accepted as true by about 97% of the world’s scientists.’
Can i gave your list of the 97% please (names only, not news articles that state 97% as well), i just want to fact check your claim.
Thanks
Your request is hard to understand. Assuming a misprint, I think you are asking if you can have a list of the 97%
You are asking me to provide the names of all the scientists who accept that climate change is true!
I mean, are you serious?
How many scientists are there in the world?
A peer-reviewed survey of more than 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject of ‘global climate change’ and ‘global warming’ published between 1991 and 2011 found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.
97% of 12,000 is 11,640.
If you are asking me to provide you with a list of 11,640 names, I will not.
If you want to fact check the widely accepted proposition that 97% of scientists accept climate change as real and anthropogenic, go for your life. See if you can get it down to 95% or 90% or even 80%.
Do the work; let me know. It makes no difference at all to the prudential argument, that you don’t take a risk of a preventable, catastrophic outcome.
And by the way: if you have children, tell them that you don’t want any steps taken to avoid or minimise climate change. They may not be grateful to hear it.
Hi Julian I like you analogies.heres another one.if 9 out of 10 doctors told you had cancer and 1 didn’t would you not undergo treatment by believing the 1.i doubt it.actually it is geological science where There is debate over anthropogenic warming e.g. Ian plimer.i spoke with a geologist at Latrobe uni and he thought it was about a 50/50 split but according to him the other variables to climate can’t explain the rise and temperature at this point in time, moreover,he said we should defer to the climate scientists as it’s there area of expertise.cheers
Terrific piece, Julian – thanks!
One minor point, though: I’d argue that even in the extremely unlikely event the 97% of climate scientists who accept AGW are wrong, the global community WON’T have have spent “a lot of money for no advantage” in moving to a zero-carbon future. Considering fossil fuels are finite, we’ll need to replace them sooner or later with renewable sources; also, there’s the not insignificant advantage that moving to a zero-carbon future will result in a much less polluted planet.
Thanks very much, Julian – mighty valuable for readers to absorb the concept of the precautionary principle – that climate change sceptics, coal enthusiasts and their political allies are throwing caution to the wind. Your work is compelling and vital. Thank you.
I have a theory that a significant proportion of climate science deniers do in fact believe the science, and also believe that it will not affect them significantly. I think it is easy for them to presume that their lives will not be severely impacted, that money will mitigate most practical issues. There is a large scale shift away from arguing the science, towards an explosion of pure puffery about the goodness of coal and oil. “Yes, climate change is real, but we can afford it.” The plane with a 97% likelihood of crashing is not such a problem if you have confidence in your parachute.
Thanks for this analysis & your incisive perspective on risk-taking. I agree with you. Love the final paragraph. Sadly – I believe that the precautionary principle has been largely ignored for decades in the practice of environmental legislation throughout Australia: that aimed to preserve our natural assets and protect biodiversity but the idea of “death by a thousand cuts” comes to mind. And in relation to our recognition of the reality of climate change and taking concerted action to avert the worst possible catastrophes, the “boiling frog” scenario is playing out, while our politicians dither, influential commentators argue publicly & people pursue their own little self-interested lives. HOW can we change that?
Dear Julian, Thank you also. Your dedication in standing up for basic human compassionate (and legal) principles with respect to refugees is an inspiration to a largely dis-empowered but caring community.
With global warming you (and we) face a far more difficult adversary.
Besides blind prejudice and fear, vested interests are so powerful that they have convinced a large proportion of society to disbelieve in the scientific paradigm itself.
For goodness sake. You, me, NASA, the UN, the governments of almost every country in the world, the Pope and the scientific community are all to be disbelieved….victims of a hoax.
The problem appears insurmountable.
But like the previous writer, Thank you for your efforts.
Thank you Julian for reminding your followers of the precautionary principle. That is, we may not have all the data to make a conclusive assessment on climate change but there are indications of a trend to global warming such as receding glaciers, sea level rises, average temperature increases and more.
What we do know is that increasing population with increasing demand for food, resources and energy will lead to greater carbon pollution if we don’t address our current consumption of all resources.
What will our legacy be for our descendants at the beginning of the next millennium? What would they say to us? What do we have to do now?