Roger Beckmann and Marguerite Tarzia, Science, Technology,
Environment and Resources Section
The last two years have seen increased questioning of the
science underpinning the concept of human-induced climate change
and of its predictions. There has also been an increasing
polarisation between camps that broadly accept the science and
demand emission reductions and drastic action, and those who either
reject it all outright, or retain a degree of caution about the
actions to be taken. The validity of climate change science, as
with any form of science, should always be open to genuine question
and scrutiny. New evidence, when verified, should be incorporated
into the body of knowledge no matter what its implications, and
subsequent models and predictions should be revised
accordingly.
Climate change science is now viewed increasingly through
political lenses, a fact that many scientists are likely to be
uncomfortable with. The intersection of science and politics is
rarely straightforward because the two disciplines operate from
very different perspectives.
Australian public’s concerns
Surveys suggest that, during 2002-2009, the prolonged drought
over much of the country, accompanied by summer bush fires and
noticeably higher temperatures in many areas, resulted in an
increase in public concern about climate change. Following the
breaking of drought over many affected regions, and the signing of
the Kyoto Protocol in December 2007, the issue of climate change
has fallen below other matters in the public’s list of
priorities.
The issue of acceptance of climate change science remains
pertinent. Surveys within Australia and globally have identified
this as a key aspect in influencing concern and desire for
political action on climate change. It is difficult for those not
trained in science and steeped in a study of the literature to
fully understand the details. While there needs to be a degree of
trust in the ‘experts’, this can be eroded. The media
and other organisations may report findings that are speculative or
not yet considered fully reliable by other scientists. Secondly,
the experts themselves may be wrong, particularly where prediction
and extrapolation are concerned, as these are inherently less
reliable than observation and controlled experiments. And finally,
the media and other organisations releasing the findings may
themselves not always be fully reliable, regardless of how the
public views the experts.
Challenges to the science
Over the last two years, the peak international body dealing
with climate change science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) has faced further questions over errors in its 2007
report. Furthermore, a series of emailed exchanges were leaked
between climate change scientists (the so-called Climategate
affair), in which some scientists were accused of inappropriately
manipulating data, and of being less than open about sharing their
data with certain individuals. Despite rigorous inquiries following
both these events, in which little evidence of serious malfeasance
or conspiracies appeared, the public’s trust in scientists
appears to have eroded somewhat. The evidence of global warming,
however, continues to mount. Despite the increasingly robust
science, the cause of the warming is still disputed by some, while
others reject some of the modeling and therefore the predictions
that come from them.
Many scientists, meanwhile, have become
‘politicised’ as they feel a responsibility to convince
the world of the seriousness of their findings. Such politicisation
does not always sit well with the process of scientific inquiry and
has led to accusations that scientists are becoming activists
rather than simple inquirers after truth. This leads to further
problems, as some scientists may find themselves labeled as
partisan or one-sided.
On the other hand, there are some scientists, qualified in the
relevant disciplines, who do not accept the general view put
forward by the IPCC and by many of the world’s scientific
academies. These scientists point out, quite correctly, that
scientific truth is not decided by majority voting and consensus
but by the evidence from the real world. They may consider the IPCC
to be a political body, or at least subject to political
influences. They either dispute the evidence, or the means by which
it is acquired, or the interpretation of it, or even the theories
upon which the interpretations are based. Rational scepticism such
as this is a vital part of science, and it is only further work and
the passage of time that resolve the disagreements. Usually, this
takes place without the glare of publicity and the political
involvement that climate science has attracted.
Outside the realm of healthy scientific skepticism lie those who
prefer to deny evidence and rational argument, or who suspect
conspiracies. The stoush between such ‘denialists’ and
the mainstream scientific view, conducted via blogs and the media,
has increased the confusion among the public. In addition, the
requirement of responsible media to present ‘all’ sides
equally, or at least to appear to do so, means that science is seen
as just one point of view among many and that the opinions of those
opposing the science may receive equal air time even if they may
have far less basis in fact.
On the other side of the argument, those accepting the science
and the urgency of the need for global action can be portrayed as
unnecessarily alarmist, pessimistic or motivated by an agenda
– for example, against coal mining. Most scientists are
moderate in their language, but pressure groups may push beyond the
accepted science. The situation is complicated by the lack of
immediate alternatives to hydrocarbon burning as a way of providing
energy for modern societies, and by the fact that Australia
benefits enormously from its coal exports, as well as using coal
for most of its electricity generation. Thus, acceptance of the
science is portrayed as acceptance of either reduced energy
consumption (which could lead to reduced economic growth and
individual standard of living) or of moving away from traditional
energy sources, with all the expense and disruption that could
entail.
The situation with the science has been compared to that
pertaining to tobacco smoke and lung cancer 50 years ago. At that
time, the connection was suspected but proof relied on statistical
investigations and animal models. The battle continued for many
decades before sufficient evidence was accumulated. Climate science
is difficult because global experiments cannot realistically be
conducted, but over-reliance on computer models is easily
criticised.
Despite the recent controversies, the overwhelming majority of
the science has stood up to independent review and is robust by
scientific standards. Internationally, as the IPCC readies itself
for a new report, it will undergo a series of structural changes to
improve its adaptability to the fast pace of the science and its
own increasingly decentralised governance.
In August 2010 the Australian Academy of Science issued its own
summary on the state of knowledge, reiterating its confidence in
the fundamental conclusions of the science.
Library publications and key documents
Australian Academy of Science, ‘The
Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers’,
http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange.html
Climate Change Assessments, Review of the
Processes and Procedures of the IPCC, Inter Academy Council,
http://www.interacademycouncil.net/CMS/Reports/13042.aspx
Parliamentary Library Climate Change website
background note, http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/ClimateChange/index.htm