Communicating Climate Change – Andy Pitman

Professor Andy Pitman did his BSc and Ph D at Liverpool University in the UK, graduating in 1988. He is now Professor in Atmospheric Science and Co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. Dr Pitman’s expertise is in climate modelling, with broad interests extending across climate change, climate impacts, land cover change, carbon dynamics etc. Andy Pitman addressed The Sydney Institute on Wednesday 23 September 2009, putting a strong case against the arguments of the climate change skeptics.

COMMUNICATING CLIMATE CHANGE

ANDY PITMAN

There are four main themes in this paper. First, I will reflect on the politics and politicisation of climate change. Second, I will comment on the psychology of climate change and why it is that some 20 per cent of the Australian population remains unconvinced by the science. I will then provide some core science that demonstrates the reality of global warming and offer a few perspectives on ways forward. Before I proceed further I need to emphasis that my personal expertise is in climate science. I am not suggesting I understand the politics or the psychology or that my thoughts on the way forward are any more legitimate than anyone else’s. I do claim expertise on climate science and was a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and I have some 120 internationally peer-reviewed publications on aspects of climate and climate science, including a suite of papers that focus on how mechanisms other than CO₂ affect climate. Most importantly, I continue to publish new science – that is, I am part of the community doing the climate science as distinct from a commentator on the science.

The politics

Global warming is not an environmental issue or a “green” issue. Global warming touches on all aspects of government, industry and social and political systems. The solutions to global warming are technological, political, legal and economic. Labeling global warming as an environmental issue tends to disenfranchise groups that are likely to provide the solutions. Global warming has a varied political heritage. UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher established the Hadley Centre in the UK because she recognised that a genuine problem was developing and well-founded science would contribute to our understanding of the problem. She was the last major political leader with a science degree, having read chemistry at Oxford. Other leaders have, however, acknowledged the threats posed by global warming including Wen Jiabao, Tony Blair and Malcolm Turnbull. They have all shown an appreciation of the science of global warming, the scale of the threat and the challenges that confront us in finding solutions. Identifying a common political perspective across Margaret Thatcher, Wen Jiabao, Tony Blair and Malcolm Turnbull is challenging and labeling them as all “left” or “right” is clearly silly.

A Newspoll published in the Australian (22 September 2009) focused on views associated with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). This is reproduced below.

% support	Oct, 2008 Total	September, 2009
		Total	sex		age			Politics
			Male	Female	18-34	35-50	>50	Lab	Lib
Strongly in favour	35	29	2	31	27	32	28	38	18
Somewhat in favour	37	38	34	43	46	39	32	38	39
Total support	72	67	61	74	73	71	60	76	57
Somewhat against	11	10	13	7	12	9	10	8	13
Strongly against	9	12	16	8	4	11	18	6	21
Total against	21	22	29	15	16	20	28	14	34
Uncommitted	7	11	10	11	11	9	12	10	9

Table 1. Newspoll published in the Australian (22 September 2009) associated with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).

From a political view point this highlights a remarkable polarization of views on the CPRS. About 76 per cent of Labour votors support the CPRS, and 57 per cent of Liberals support it. The 19 per cent difference is confronting since the scienceof global warming, which is the rationale for the CPRS, is not politicized. After all, a “left wing” or “right wing” perspective on global temperature records, or Newton’s Second Law, or the way electromagnetic radiation travels through the atmosphere is invalid.

Why is there a 19% different based on political leaning on the CPRS? Why do Liberals appear more unwilling to accept global warming than Labour voters? It is, in my view, because global warming has become seen as an environmental issue or a green issue and that tends to alienate many Liberal voters (although 57 per cent of Liberal voters do support a CPRS which is rather higher than many might expect given recent rhetoric from Canberra). The politicisation of global warming is unfortunate since while the left/environment movement may believe they “own” global warming and the Greens may use it as a “cause”, the solutions are almost certainly to be found in the business sector, particularly “big business” which tends to be better represented by the Liberal side of politics. Thus, global warming being seen as an environmental issue has disengaged it from the potential solutions and that is not a positive development.

Fundamentally, climate science is about physics, chemistry, fluid dynamics, biology etc. These are not favored by any one side of politics; rather they are amazingly badly represented by either side of politics. I would like to see no difference between Australian voters, on the basis of their politics, on the reality of global warming because it makes no sense that there is any difference. A difference, based on politics on solutions is inevitable of course, but not on the existence of the problem.

The psychology

The science around global warming says there is a problem. I will reflect on that later. Over many years of presenting on climate change, reading letters in newspapers, receiving phone calls and e-mails, I have reached a few conclusions. My statistical sample size is many hundred, which probably makes these reflections statistically significant.

First, it is usual that the person who calls to prove to you global warming is false is elderly and male. If you scan the internet you will find that almost every person who confidently asserts that global warming is wrong/a myth/global conspiracy/natural variability etc is over 50 and male. They also, almost without exception (but not without any single exception) have absolutely no expertise in climate science. They are a direct parallel with the chiropractor presenting their views on open heart surgery.

Secondly, my perspective is that a large fraction of the climate activists are elderly and female. Certainly, this is less clear as many males are also active but there is something quite fundamental about age, gender and capacity to misrepresent the climate science. This is rather nicely captured in Table 1. Thirty-one per cent of females are strongly in favour of the CPRS, but only 2 per cent of males. 74 per cent of females support a CPRS, but only 61 per cent of males. The gender bias is striking. The age bias in Table 1 is also striking. There is an 11 per cent drop in support in the over 50 demographic (from 71-60 per cent). At the presentation to The Sydney Institute a statement was made from the audience that this was related to the accumulation of wisdom. The hint in the overall picture shown in Table 1 would be that this accumulation in wisdom would only be in males which would seem unlikely. It is more likely a quite fundamental difference in how males and females manage risk. Men do not see medical doctors unless dragged by their families.

Men are much less likely than women to engage in preventative health screens. Men’s diets are also poorer than women’s and they’re less likely to use sunscreen or receive vaccines and flu shots. Men’s attitude is “she’ll be right”; women’s attitude is “let’s try to make sure she’ll be right”. Women typically appear to strategically plan to minimize avoidable risks; men rush in and deal with the consequences.

It is interesting to speculate on the evolutionary rationale for this – basically men are expendable and risk taking tended to lead to better successes in hunting or warfare. Women were vital to protect the young and look at evolving threats and act to avoid them. Of course this is simplistic but next time you hear someone denying global warming the odds are that they are male and old. They are also using their perception of risk to argue for no action recognizing that they will not be around to experience the consequences of climate change. The morality of using pseudo-science to defend a position that impacts future generations, when this future is avoidable via good planning is breathtakingly questionable.

There are many other reasons why people struggle with the psychology of climate change, and perceptions that are used by denialists to try to prompt doubt in people’s minds. There are direct parallels with the tobacco lobby’s strategies here; “one cigarette won’t hurt you”, “most doctors smoke” and “remember grandma lived to 90 smoking 20 a day”. These all try to instill doubt in people’s minds regarding the science and climate denialists have learned well from history.

For example, carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas. It cannot matter. Well, what has color or smell got to do with how CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation? Nothing whatsoever. Carbon monoxide is also colorless and odorless but if you inhale it for a few minutes you will die. Carbon dioxide is also rare so it cannot matter, can it? CO₂ represents 0.0384 per cent of the atmosphere. If the concentration of cyanide in your blood reaches 0.0003 per cent you will die. That is 100 times lower than the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere; it is not the concentration that matters, rather it is the impact of the change in the concentration that maters. Finally, CO₂ is a naturally occurring gas – it is a “fertilizer” – a “good thing”.

Farmers use elevated CO₂ to boost crops and this works in a glasshouse provided water and nutrients are available. Unfortunately, the fact that something is “natural” does not make it necessarily good. Many trace elements are good in natural concentrations – zinc, cadmium etc – but lethal in higher concentrations. In the case of CO₂ it is not  natural concentrations of this gas that is cause for concern, rather it is the increase in the concentration of this gas to levels not experienced in the last 650,000 years (or more specifically in the period since humans developed civilizations) that is the concern.

A second major reason why some people do people not accept the science relates to a suite of issues relating to how humans perceive their environment. First, the public and politicians routinely confuse weather and climate. The fact that a hot day occurs, or indeed a few cold days, does not mean global warming is real or has gone away. A dust storm in Sydney does not prove global warming, and 5 years of global average temperatures not warming is entirely to be expected and says noting of significance for global warming. Indeed, climate scientists expect cooling over 2 or 3 separate decades of the twenty-first century superimposed on a century-scale warming trend. It is like my paying $1000 a day, every day, into your bank account but withdrawing $10,000 once per month. The sudden drop at the end of the month is hardly a cause for concern and I bet you would not cancel the deal.

People are also confused by the reporting of the global warming science. There is no debate in the climate science about global warming being “real”. It is real, of course it is real and there are literally thousands of scientific papers to prove this. I would fully agree that there are occasional papers that ask questions, raise issues etc but not one of these (and I mean not one of these) has led to global warming being proved wrong. Some have led to refinements in the arguments, modifications to the scale of concern, re-emphasis of the contribution by various processes etc which is all good and legitimate science. The media is not overly excited by reporting this process. They understandably prefer debate and confrontation. It is not the media’s role to inform in a scientifically rigorous way and developing an understanding of global warming via the media is like developing your understanding of any core area of science from the media.

Climate science and global warming has also been the topic of choice for non-experts to claim expertise. The Australian Newspaper’s opinion pages, for example, point to “experts” in climate science, giving their views on the reality of global warming. It is fascinating that historians, economists, politicians, software engineers, Cardinals, geologists all have views on the (non) reality of global warming. I have no issue with these groups talking about their perspectives on the solutions to global warming. However, the media would not ask me to comment on software engineering or the truth of some fundamental belief in Catholicism. They would not ask me to provide a commentary on the next federal budget or to reflect on the impact of white settlement on indigenous society. This is because I have no expertise in these areas, and expertise is defined as having made a significant contribution to the knowledge-base and having demonstrated this contribution over time.

The historians, economists, politicians, software engineers, Cardinals and geologists denying the science of climate change is simply irrelevant because these communities have no expertise in this science. Science is highly specialised – a little like medicine. Find me a brain surgeon that builds his or her techniques from reading the Sydney Morning Herald or listening to Channel 7/9/10 and I will show you a surgeon I would not want to conduct surgery on me. Find me a commentator on climate change that has no sustained and up to date publications in the peer reviewed literature and their views (whether they support the science or deny the science) are not useful because they cannot be informed at the cutting edge of the science. This is not some “climate science arrogance” since I am also asserting that any commentary by me on any issue other than climate science is worth very little.

The public’s perception of the reality of global warming is very badly biased toward recent experience. A few extremely hot days, as were experienced in Melbourne and Adelaide last summer increases those accepting the science of global warming and makes the denialists run for cover. A few cold days has my phone running hot as the media says “is global warming over”. This is weather not climate and humans are very well tuned to formulate views based more on the recent than on the distant past. This is hugely problematic for global warming as we expect cold days, cold months and even cold years through the twenty-first century. These will be less cold days but there will always be some.

Another problem for global warming science is the suggestion we are being alarmist. The Y2K bug, for example, is commonly used as a “catastrophe” that was a beat up. Another is the ozone hole – some recent media is asking if this “catastrophe” was also a beat up since it appears to be getting better. Both these examples are perfect parallels for global warming.  Y2K was a very real threat. It did not happen because a whole lot of careful planning, testing, software engineering and threat minimisation were implemented. It did not become a catastrophe because we removed the threat.

The ozone hole developed because of human-released gases (the CFCs). The Montreal Protocol restricted the use of these gases and emissions declined. As a result of the lower emissions, the ozone hole is disappearing (very slowly). I like both the Y2K and ozone hole examples because they show that via legislation, international agreements, strategic planning and risk minimisation a major catastrophe can be averted by human ingenuity. All I want is the same legislation, international agreements, strategic planning and risk minimisation to be applied to global warming. If, in 2050, people are shouting “there was never a problem with global warming” because we have deeply cut emissions and cut these emissions such that the Earth does not warm I would be delighted.

Finally, and perhaps most fundamentally, global warming is a very serious and an insidious threat. It creeps up apparently slowly. It is due to emissions at the heart of our economy and way of life. It seems to require major changes and we do not much like change. It is so much easier to believe it is not a problem and to hope the problem will go away. It is like that throb of a tooth that you hope will go away but deep down you know will need a visit to the dentist. Better to deny, better to ignore, better to look for minor uncertainties than to make the hard, strategic and change-causing decisions to resolve the problem. Unfortunately, this is precisely what we have to do.

The science

It is impossible to summarise the science that supports global warming in a few pages. The IPCC took 996 pages in 2007 to establish the evidence.  However, a few basic pieces of evidence can provide a useful context. First, it is important to understand how science works. Science works by a free exchange of ideas; ideas that are independently tested, assessed with alternative evidence and criticised. Over time, some ideas fall by the way side because they were proven incorrect, or new evidence contradicted the idea or new techniques showed flaws in the argument.

Each step in this process is undertaken in the scientific literature where papers are peer reviewed by 2-4 experts before the paper can be published. This process is not perfect; poor science is published and occasionally great science is rejected. If poor science is published it becomes exposed by the work of others. If great science is rejected, the authors usually publish it in another journal.  Very little science has survived largely intact over 100 years.

Global warming started in earnest in the 1930s with G S Callendar. His basic ideas have survived intact. The detail of the science underpinning global warming has – of course – evolved and been refined through mainly the 1980, 1990s and up to the present. However, the amount the Earth will warm by, the basic radiative properties of greenhouse gases and the scale of warming projected in this century really have not changed. A simple “back of the envelope” calculation that Callendar could have done gives you a similar amount of warming to the latest global climate models.

If one scientific paper is published that disproves a scientific idea, then the scientific idea is wrong. Of course, that single paper has to be right, reproducible and relevant. There is no such paper on global warming. That is, there is no paper that has withstood any form of scrutiny that proves global warming false (or even flawed) and yet there are literally thousands that prove it true. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, a scientist has no choice but to (a) accept the evidence, while (b) working hard to identify limitations of flaws in the evidence. That is what we do – we search for errors in global warming science and the notable lack of any progress in finding flaws is because it is robust science.

To reiterate, there is not a single piece of credible evidence that global warming is wrong. I will deal with two common myths about climate scientists: (a) we have conspired to hide the evidence that disproves global warming and (b) we talk up global warming to win more research funding. On the first question, scientists are quite an ambitious lot. We like to be first. Publishing that paper that disproved global warming would probably win a Nobel Prize, a position at any University, unlimited research funding from industry and several governments and immortality, it would be one of the greatest discoveries of twentieth or twenty-first century science. Does anyone really think that science could be suppressed and that climate scientists are that well organised and devious?

On the second question, my argument in this paper is that the science is now clear, unequivocal and robust. I am a climate scientist who likes winning research funding. Can anyone explain to me how telling you, governments, etc that the science is basically done helps me win research funding? Surely the classic “we need to do more research to be sure” would be a better strategy.  Of course, we do need more research to fine tune the details of global warming, where will be most affected, when, etc but we do not need more funding to establish that global warming is a scientific fact.

To prove that the science is settled is not easy in a few pages. I refer the reader to www.ipcc.ch and recommend they read the summary for policy makers for working group 1 of the IPCC. This is founded on the Technical Summary document which in turn is founded on the 995 page actual report by the IPCC. This in turn is founded on the peer reviewed literature and that is the genuine source for the confidence in the science. There really is little point my reproducing the IPCC conclusions here since they are available in their complete form at the web site, along with “frequently asked questions” that fully explain many of the basic questions people have about global warming.

Some basic data helps provide a context to the confidence we have in the science. Current CO₂ levels have not been exceeded in the last 650,000 years and probably not in the last 20 million years. If you want proof of this read the documents noted above. Emissions of carbon dioxide are now about 8.5 Gt C y^-1 [8,500,000,000 tonnes of carbon per year]. A significant portion of this is accumulating in the atmosphere. We know this because chemists measure the ratios of the isotopes of carbon in the carbon dioxide and they can prove that they come from burning of fossil fuels.

The total increase in energy due to the increases in greenhouse gases is about 0.5 W m^-2. 1 Watt per meter squared is 1 Joule per metre squared per second. So, while 0.5 W m^-2 might sound trivial, it is actually 16,000,000 Joules of energy for every square metre of the Earth’s surface per year. That is roughly equivalent to distributing 200 billion hairdryers – 30 per human being – and running them continuously over this past 30 years.

The consequences of this additional energy is to cause warming of the climate system. This warming is unequivocal, humans are causing the warming of the atmosphere and the oceans (to at least 3000m). Lots of other changes are happening consistent with this warming such as loss of snow and ice changes in flora and fauna etc. Individuals are welcome to decline to believe this, but this is inconsistent with the evidence. Continued greenhouse gas emissions will cause further warming – larger than in the twentieth century – and contribute to sea level rise for more than a millennium. Indeed we are committed to at least several more decades of warming and associated changes in temperature, sea level and other impacts if we stopped emissions today. Again, individuals may choose not to believe this, but this would be inconsistent with the science.

Of course, nobody believes that global warming means that everywhere has to warm, nor that every year will be warmer than the previous year. It is like superannuation where it is the accumulation over time, not the annual returns that matter. Global temperatures have stabilized over the last five or so years. This is unremarkable and is due to longer term variability in the oceans (El Nino-La Nina cycles and some longer term modes of variability). This is understood. The long La Nina we have recently experienced should have cooled the planet by something like 0.2^oC. It actually did not cool the planet at all.

The fact that the Earth did not cool over the last five years, in a statistically significant sense, and did not cool by 0.2^oC in any sense is profoundly worrying. La Nina coupled with the low solar minimum should have caused substantial cooling. The fact that it did not is most simply explained by suggesting that climate scientists have underestimated the rate of warming associated with increasing CO₂. So, the plateau of temperature over the last few years is not a cause for celebration, rather it is a cause for deeper concern over the future scale of warming.

Which brings me to the issue of risk and probabilities. We build for a 1 in 100 year storm which statistically none of us will personally experience. We engineer aircraft such that there are [say] 10 crashes per year (actually there are almost none). There are about 18 million commercial flights a year. So the chances of a crash is roughly 1 in 1.8 million flights. If you took a flight every day of your life you would have to live to about 5000 before statistics say you would experience a crash. We engineer aeroplanes to this degree of safety because we do not like risk. Yet we are willing to take a risk on the future of the Earth’s climate because some people, unqualified in the science happen to believe that the climate science might be wrong ?

There might be something climate scientists have missed? That makes sense exactly how? Why do we engineer an aircraft to a risk of 1 in 1.8 million but deny a risk that is 95% or 98% or 99.5% certain? If you refuse to accept my probabilities, what level of risk would you put on global warming – if its less than 95% it is inconsistent with the science, but if its greater than 1 in 1.8 million why are you not advocating action?

Lets persue the probability question. Below is a probability density function of how much the earth will warm due to global warming.

The highest point on the red curve is the most likely value – about 3.5^oC. There is uncertainty around this value due to emissions and our knowledge of the science. This is what climate scientists mean by uncertainty. We are uncertain whether it will warm by 3.5^oC, or 2.0^oC, or 6.5^oC. We are certain that it will warm by at least 1.4^oC (but only if we dramatically cut emissions by more than even the Greens propose). The probability that it will warm by less that 2^oC or by more than 6.5^oC is almost zero. If you want to be 95 per cent sure, then warming will be between about 2.0^oC and 5.5^oC.  If you are happy with 90 per cent sure, it’s 2.1^oC to 5^oC. If you are happy with 50 per cent sure then its 3.5^oC. The projected amount of warming is therefore dependent on how confident you want to be in the estimate.

In business, industry, government one should make decisions on the balance of probabilities depending on the scale of risk. On the balance of probablities warming will be 3.5^oC. That is, simply, catastropic and is not a tenable future. For the record, the picture above includes estimates of things like a plane crash or that the science of global warming will be proven wrong. There is a vastly higher chance of you winning a first division prize in the national lottery than global warming being proven wrong.

The consequences of 3.5^oC warming is shown below. This picture is not based on well established science, it is based on expert opinion and the precise points on the diagram where specific events occur are not certain.

The point is that with warming of 3.5^oC this research says we lose the Amazon, the Greenland ice sheet, the Himalayan glaciers and Arctic summer sea ice. Can you really reconcile a threat of that scale with advocacy for inaction because you believe global warming to be wrong? The loss of the Himalayan glaciers places a billion people at risk from lack of fresh water and crop failure. If you are in business, contemplate the resulting instability in China and India. Do you really feel that sure that your views that global warming is wrong are correct? Consider the risk and the likely outcomes. It is very bad business to risk your markets on the hope that the world’s climate scientists are wrong when the chances of this are lower than you willing the national lottery. I reiterate that the precise position of the words on the above figure are not exact. The Greenland ice sheet may be more or less stable than hinted. The ENSO cycle may be more or less stable that hinted. But it is wishful thinking to believe that all of these phenomenon are more stable that believed.

Ways forward

There is no “silver bullet” for global warming. It is best to understand the scale of the problem since the scale of solutions has to be understood in this context. Global emission cuts of order 60-80% are required. These cuts are required as soon as possible (say 2030) and this would reduce (but not eliminate) the risks associated with global warming. One does not achieve 60-80% cuts by any single means. It is not merely energy efficiency, or geosequestration, or replacement of coal power by gas, or using biofuels or increasing energy efficiency. It is all of these and more and it requires a fundamental revision to the economic system.

There are some who see this as impossible but not everyone will be part of the solution and position themselves and their businesses to gain advantage as the system changes. All major change offers opportunity but leaves others behind and it is the choice of individuals and individual companies as to whether they wish to position to take advantage via being part of the solution, or whether they wish to be “out evolved”. There are two strategies in my mind.

First, we have to buy time.  We do have to cut emissions and use that relative pain to drive technological innovation that re-positions the Australian economy to be first world (technologically driven) rather than third world (dig stuff up and sell it). There is nothing wrong in exporting minerals and coal of course, but it is worrisome if your economy is based on exports of something that is the cause of a problem that the world is trying to solve. Emission reductions need to come through many means including nuclear, gas replacing coal, renewables, more efficient cars, more public transport, gas/solar hot water and even energy efficient light globes. We need to increase natural sinks for greenhouse gases via reforestration and perhaps biochar. We should be exploring geosequestration, not as the solution but as part of a solution. Deforestation and land clearance has to be stopped since this releases greenhouse gases and reduces the sinks for greenhouse gases. There may be a role, in a real and immediate emergency, for geoengineering but given the consequences of geoengineering is unknown we had better hope we do not need it.

Second, we have to plan for and adapt to the changes that are already happening, will intensify in the near future and develop further over time. Some of these are as trivial as engineering sea walls or sacrificing near-ocean settlements. No one seriously believes Australia can protect all coastal settlements to sea level rise any more than we could protect the agricultural sector in the Murray-Darling Basin if rainfall declines further and permanently or we can protect every house from the fire storm that is overdue, in a statistical sense, in the Blue Mountains and parts of Sydney. We can reduce vulnerability via careful planning. Building on flood planes that are likely to experience higher floods, building just above high tide when sea levels are rising, building houses into the bush with single lane access are all beautifully crafted to maximize the risk to existing hazards. Skilful planning, with an awareness of the changes in climate that are now happening and will continue to happen in the future could offset some of the consequences of climate change and reduce costs.

Planning for some consequences, like environmental refugees from flooding in Bangladesh, or loss of fresh water in India and China seem more problematic. The geopolitical impacts of global warming are beginning to be considered. While in my view almost all projected consequences of global warming located on the Australian continent are within this country’s adaptive capacity, Australia is very vulnerable economically and geopolitically to what will occur in Asia. Asia’s adaptive capacity will be exceeded by climate change and the consequences of this to the Australian economy and society will likely be profound. In my view it is not internalthreats to Australia that make global agreements on emission controls vital; its externalthreats that will dominate the challenges to Australia in the future.

Conclusions

Global warming, amplified by humans, is a reality. If you do not accept this statement then you need to re-read the scientific evidence (not blogs, not web sites, not books, not newspapers) because this statement is correct, to a level of certainty that is unusual in science. The risk of this statement being wrong is very low and humans, governments and business hardly ever have the luxury of this level of scientific certainty to make decisions.

Many of you reading this will be skeptical about this conclusion. Climate scientists do not mind skepticism since this is the basis of scientific advance. But let us not confuse scientific skepticism where we look for holes in arguments and the arguments used by the climate denialists. Denialists repeat the same arguments. These arguments are shown to be false but they still use them. This is not scientifically legitimate. We have procedures to act when a politician misleads parliament.

If a member of a board is shown to have intentionally misled the board that is actionable. If you lie to a court of law you are in contempt. If I claim to have skill in surgery and I perform surgery without being registered I can be prosecuted. I cannot even legally rewire a light switch without the qualification as an electrician. So, why can non experts, without any qualification, without any track record in the field, without scientifically reviewed publications in the field and without ever having contributed to the field deny the science of global warming with impunity?  Of course they should be able to say what they want, but the public, government, business and you should not be so naïve to actually listen.

In conclusion, there is no evidence that the science of global warming is wrong, but there are copious amounts to show that it is right. Skeptics publicize old arguments to misinform and delay. That said, I fully recognize that there is debate to be had. This debate is not “is global warming a problem” or “is the science right” because it simply is a problem and the science is right, whether individuals choose to believe this or not. The debate is actually far more encompassing and far more interesting that some technical argument over the science of global warming. The debate, that is worthy of the best science, legal, business, economic, political and engineering minds we have is “what do we do about it”, “how fast can we react”, “how do we protect vulnerable systems”, “what can we allow to be lost”, “what must be safeguarded”, “what innovations can we develop”, and “how do we position to take competitive advantage”.

These are genuine debates – legitimate debates. If you choose to waste effort on misplaced denial of the reality of global warming and give your competitors opportunities that is entirely up to you. To those who want to be part of the solution, the challenge is here and how. Engaging in the efforts to find those solutions represents a contribution that future generations will respect.

---

See www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/19/1045330661997.html