A few years ago, there seemed to be a clear line of battle drawn between those who accepted the IPCC received wisdom on climate change – that disruptive and damaging global warming of several degrees was almost certain this century unless stringent cuts in carbon dioxide emissions were made as soon as possible – and those who believed the case was at best overstated and at worst completely false. With the debate being so polarised, insults flew in both directions and a dialogue of the deaf ensued.
Official scientific advice and the messages reaching the public were increasingly apocalyptic and, as the anthropogenic global warming story gained traction, the main differentiation of opinion occurred at the pro-IPCC end of the spectrum. Although the official line remained that of the most recent of the massive Assessment Reports, there were frequent ‘it’s even worse than we thought’ stories and projections of runaway warming as the ice-caps disappeared, enormous quantities of methane was released from clathrates and the Gulf Stream reversed.
This was the situation prevailing around the time the Fourth Assessment Report was released in 2007. The Kyoto protocol had finally come into force in 2005, following ratification by Russia. Momentum had built and the COP15 UNFCCC summit Copenhagen in December 2009 was seen as the conference where the framework for a post-Kyoto agreement would be set (the Kyoto protocol itself only covered commitments by industrialised countries for emissions reductions up to 2012).
Global warming was a high-profile story, almost constantly in the news, with a series of major public figures putting their oar in. In a not untypical piece from those fevered times, the heir to the British throne made his position extremely clear in March 2009 – Prince Charles: 100 months to save the world. But today, with HRH’s countdown halfway through, there has been a very significant change in the zeitgeist. Instead of increasing concern and continuing apocalyptic visions, climate change stories have been relegated to inside pages and the rhetoric has largely moderated (except in the blogosphere, where feelings on both sides of the argument continue to run high at times).
Looking back now, the fiasco that was the Copenhagen conference looks like the high-water mark of the hubristic view that climate change was understood, could be mitigated and that a global agreement would be put in place to achieve that. In fact, no agreement was reached and the bloated international negotiating circus continues to move round the world, but now making few headlines and achieving little of note. Realpolitik has trumped collectivist idealism.
That means that, for the most part, the debate between the enthusiasts and the sceptics has also become more nuanced. The whole crux of the matter, which many commentators had been saying for years but to little response, has now become more widely accepted: the argument is not about whether Mankind’s activities influence the climate, but rather the degree to which they do. The key question is what, if any, the policy response should be at a time of acknowledged uncertainty.
In the meantime, of course, most mainstream politicians in Europe are now committed, to a greater or lesser degree, to a path of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases. One of the reasons for the almost religious zeal shown by supporters of the IPCC case was the implicit understanding that governments would only act (and voters would only support their actions) if the case for dangerous, anthropogenic global warming was sufficiently strong. Any criticism, however reasoned, was deemed to weaken the scientific case and so reduce the political will to take action.
Nowadays, with a wide range of opinions being given airtime and column inches, it might be thought that behaviour had returned to a more adult footing. Not necessarily so, judging by the rather intemperate remarks made by the (LibDem) Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change at Westminster: Edward Davey speech: Climate Change, Acting on the Science. He was addressing a Met Office Climate Services event, so we might expect him to be supportive of their agenda, but he went far beyond this.
Consider these words: “But some sections of the press are giving an uncritical campaigning platform to individuals and lobby groups who reject, outright, the fact that climate change is a result of human activity. Some who even deny the reality of climate change itself. This is not the serious science of challenging, checking and probing. This is destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism born of vested interest, nimbyism, publicity seeking contraversialism or sheer blinkered, dogmatic, political bloody-mindedness.”
This followed a section in which he used as support a rather controversial paper reporting 97% support for the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis by climate scientists (Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature). Since progress in science occurs via gathering of evidence and testing of hypotheses, not by a show of hands, this is really yet another attempt to slap down critics. And by attacking the Press and insulting sceptics, he does his case and his office no favours.
The conclusion is that, however nuanced the evidence may be, the interpretation of it can still polarise opinions and prevent a rational discussion. The impression coming from Whitehall is that the hard-line supporters of radical decarbonisation are closing ranks and actively defending their position against both continuing scientific uncertainty and increasing realisation that present policy is futile. Ultimately, the evidence will build and a better understanding of climate and its drivers will emerge. In the meantime, we should all recognise the rather large degree of common ground and work for a better scientific understanding, rather than blindly defending expensive and ineffective policies.
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
_________________________________________________