Climate Research News

Where the climate change debate is concerned, the temptation to use military metaphors is sometimes irresistible. Until recently, the vastly superior forces of the IPCC and its allies in the scientific establishment have prevailed against the guerrilla warfare of the sceptics, who have sometimes done localised damage but never threatened the monolith. However, as a series of weaknesses in their campaign have become increasingly public, those who are currently in the scientific mainstream are being forced to conduct a more vigorous defence of their position. But the various groups of dissenting and sceptical irregulars, though they have gained ground, are far from having won the war. Both camps are now digging in for the long haul. Whether there will ever be a decisive victory for one side or the other is doubtful, but for now the battlefield is at least more even.

Without belabouring the metaphor any further, what has reduced the seemingly unstoppable impetus of the climate change policy brigade? The answer is really two-fold: a failure to achieve meaningful agreement in Copenhagen , which had been billed as the make-or-break summit, and a series of revelations about the workings of the IPCC panel which raise serious questions about credibility. Taken together, the resultant loss in policy-making momentum may never be regained. The consequence is likely to be that any meaningful post-Kyoto agreement might have to be negotiated in light of considerably more evidence than we currently have, which is surely no bad thing.

When faced with criticism – much of it both legitimate and measured, although it must be admitted that some of it became quite personal and vitriolic – the climate change establishment closed ranks and condescendingly dismissed all the points raised. Dissenters were routinely said to be in the pay of the oil industry (despite the fact that companies have little to fear from the policies mooted) or disparaged as flat-Earthers or even village idiots. They framed the debate (while seeking to close it down) as between “scientists” on one hand and “sceptics” on the other (fortunately, the term “denier” is now less frequently heard), with the implicit assumption that no scientist could possibly disagree with the mainstream view. Ad hominem slurs were common.

Human nature being what it is, this failure to acknowledge the credibility of any criticism riled many sceptics so much that, when evidence of sloppiness, closed-mindedness and downright obstruction among key climate scientists started to appear, quite a few went straight for the jugular. Claims that the various revelations totally discredit the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) hypothesis and the work of the IPCC are wide of the mark but, in such a highly partisan and polarised debate, understandable.

In fact, the various “gates” paint an unflattering picture of arrogance and unscientific behaviour within the influential clique of scientists and policymakers central to the IPCC process. A little humility and acceptance of the faults would not be amiss and would very likely enhance the IPCC’s reputation. Instead, there are the beginnings of a full-blown counterattack and the setting up of an “independent” enquiry which promises to be anything but.

The problems (or faults, or mistakes, call them what you will) which have been publicised do not in themselves undermine the AGW hypothesis, but taken together they do call into question the supposedly objective nature of the massive assessment reports which the IPCC publishes periodically (the fourth, and most recent, AR4, in 2007). Discounting for now evidence which either conflicts with AGW or supports alternative hypotheses, climategate and its ilk hint at a process where scientific open-mindedness comes a distant second to the search for evidence which supports what has come to be seen as a self-evident truth, that humans are disrupting climate.

The leaking of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which will inevitably continue to be referred to as climategate, showed the defensiveness of the key scientists responsible for collating the global temperature record. While we should not place too much weight on particular words or expressions (after all, who does not at some time or another regret committing some things to email?) there appears to have been a clear attempt to withhold data, together with non-compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.

While requests for data from people known to be critical of your work must be very annoying, good science has nothing to fear from open questioning of results. But the exact temperature record is not really the key issue, average temperature being sensitive to the means used to derive it. Nevertheless, hiding the raw data can only give rise to suspicions about how selectively it might have been used.

In many ways a more worrying incident was the inclusion of a statement in AR4 that Himalayan glaciers were set to disappear by 2035. This conclusion was questioned, in particular by the Indian government, which published an independent report coming to very different conclusions (and which was dismissed as “voodoo science” by Rajendra Pachauri , current head of the IPCC).

It turned out that the quote had come from a non-peer reviewed WWF report and had no basis in reality. In itself a small thing, but it gives cause for concern that the authors of the chapter in question could include such a reference. Were they simply slapdash, or were they happy to include anything, however tenuous, which supported their case?

There was too much publicity for these and other concerns (including being selective with cut-off dates to ensure inclusion of the ‘right’ papers and exclusion of the ‘wrong’ ones) simply to be ignored. The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, has asked the InterAcademy Council (comprising various national academies of science) “to conduct an independent review of the IPCC’s processes and procedures to further strengthen the quality of the Panel’s reports on climate change”.

Doubtless there will be a few minor slaps on the wrist over procedure. Pachauri himself may be sacrificed, given his rather intemperate way with critics. But the IPCC juggernaut itself will lumber on unchanged, with the same mission: to assemble evidence that our species is the major driver of climate change.

The IAC investigation is the defensive part of the campaign, but the climate establishment is also back on the offensive. Take, for example, a recent article in the UK Times (We climate scientist are not ecofanatics) by Sir John Houghton, first head of IPCC’s working group 1, in which he said that the IPCC was actually being too cautious in its conclusions. It is worthwhile looking at a few quotes:

“The IPCC is too big an organisation to be captured by an ideological cabal or fall foul of group-think”, which simply shows a staggering lack of understanding of human behaviour.

“The IPCC process also makes it impossible for green propaganda to be slipped in”. Such as a WWF report?

“But scientists are now faced by powerful lobbies who are working to distort and discredit the science behind climate change”. The belief that if people do not believe you, they cannot be honest.

Quite frankly, if that is going to be the nature of the debate, we are in for a long period of trench warfare. Time to invent the rhetorical equivalent of the tank.

The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 0WS
Tel: +44 1223 421242

March 19th, 2010 | Tags: Climate Change, Climategate, IPCC | Category: Opinion | Subscribe to comments | Leave a comment | Trackback URL