When trying to make sense of global warming and climate
change, the average non-expert is faced with a stark choice, namely who is to
be believed – those who state that the world is warming and mankind is largely
responsible, or those who either deny that there is any warming or state that
what warming there might be is either minor or is caused by wholly natural
causes that are beyond human control?
The two camps can be described as global warming warners
versus deniers, and most people find themselves coming down on one side or the
other, based on what they read and are told.
To be blunt, the debate rages most vehemently in the United
States, where the deniers have a much firmer foothold. In the rest of the world
it is generally held that this debate is a phony one, because the basic science
of global warming and climate change is settled – the evidence is so strong
that it is beyond denial. What is important is getting on with the business of
reducing humanity’s carbon footprint and slowing down the rate of warming as
much as possible and as soon as possible.
However, there are still many people who are yet to be
convinced of the truth of the matter – and the majority of these, as mentioned
above, do appear to be Americans. This worries the rest of us, because we
recognise that the United States is a major player in creating the conditions
that have led to the situation in which we now find ourselves.
So what this boils down to is – who do you believe to be
telling you the truth about global warming? Let’s take a look at the advocates
on each side of the debate.
This was set up in 1988, under the auspices of the United
Nations, to assemble the best available information on climate change and
present reports based on that information. Its scope and membership is
international and it relies only on sources that are completely trustworthy and
scientifically rigorous, such as peer-reviewed journal articles. It does not
conduct research on its own behalf, but coordinates the results of hundreds of
research projects conducted across the world into every aspect of climate
change.
To date it has produced five Assessment Reports, with the
next one due in 2022.
This is an agency of the United States government that
performs a number of roles, including operating and managing the environmental
satellites that collect data of vital importance to climate scientists. This
data is archived so that accurate climate forecasts can be made based on the
most trustworthy information available.
The NOAA works closely with the IPCC, thus ensuring that the
latter’s work can depend on reliable raw data.
And on the other hand?
The global warming deniers would prefer you to ignore the
work of the IPCC and NOAA, instead putting forward specious arguments such as
claiming that the occasional errors and over-statements made by these bodies
invalidate the whole of their work. What a strange world it would be if you
could only take on trust the statements of people who never made a mistake!
Would anyone ever trust anyone else about anything on that basis?
Instead, the deniers would prefer you to believe the
statements of a whole raft of supposed experts who are frequently cited and
quoted, and to whose websites and YouTube videos you will be referred.
There are many organizations that co-ordinate the views of
deniers, and their websites are well worth a visit. For example:
This body routinely issues statements that deny global
warming, and much of what they say may indeed sound persuasive. However, it is
as well to be aware that this body has, in the past, received huge sums of
money from the oil and gas industry, which has a vested interest in
discrediting the findings of climate science that point to man-made global
warming.
It is also worth bearing in mind that in the 1990s the
Heartland Institute was perfectly happy to take money from tobacco companies to
find evidence that passive smoking was not harmful.
So do you really want to trust anything that these people
tell you, given the reasons why they are saying what they do?
One arm of the Heartland Institute is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). This aims to debunk the work of
the IPCC by presenting alternative reports. However, the breadth of its
coverage is nothing like as great as that of the reports of IPCC, which
summarise the work of thousands of climate scientists. The NIPCC is merely a
mouthpiece for a handful of well-known deniers who are paid for their work
(unlike the contributors to IPCC reports). Which do you think is more likely to
be reliable – the IPCC or the NIPCC?
A Canadian denialist organization that is known to have
received funds in the past from Albertan oil and gas interests.
***************************************
However, you will usually be referred to the statements of
certain individuals who are touted as top-ranking scientists who will tell you
the truth about global warming. But when you start looking at their
qualifications and backgrounds you have to wonder if they are as trustworthy as
they might appear at first sight. There are a lot of these, so there is only
space here to mention a few:
Willie Soon
An astronomer and aerospace engineer with a long record of
climate change denial. Very little of his research has appeared in
peer-reviewed journals, but virtually all his funding has come from oil and gas
interests.
Fred Singer
A former space scientist who has made many denialist
statements and worked with a number of organizations that are known to have
received funding from the oil and gas industry.
Craig Idso
A prominent denier, alongside his father Sherwood and
brother Keith. He is the Chairman and former President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a prominent denialist organization.
The Idso family has a long history of ties to fossil fuel companies.There are many more organizations and individuals that make a lot of noise opposing climate science and take a lot of money from vested interests. To find more of them, simply go to the DeSmogBlog website.
Once you have given both sides of the divide your full attention you can make up your mind – which side do you trust to be telling you the truth?
And finally, why not have a look at this clip of a debate between a denier and a real scientist? Are you still undecided?
© John Welford
I knew a lot of what is written here; however, this article has summarised the current literature and presents it very clearly. I will recommend this to friends and colleagues.
ReplyDelete