Em inglês ...

The Phobia of Dangerous Human-caused Global Warming

Professor Bob Carter


It is scarcely necessary to tell an audience whose jobs rest upon their knowledge of nuclear science that a basic human emotion is fear of the unknown. For it is a commonplace amongst credentialled nuclear scientists that satisfactory and safe technological solutions already exist for both the generation of nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear waste. Yet public phobia regarding the nuclear industry remains strong, and is easily fanned by self-interested groups such as environmental lobbyists. The nuclear power “problem”, then, is almost entirely one of politics, not technology.

Fear of invisible radiation is one thing, and fear of the invisible, reputedly-dangerous greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is another similar thing. For over the last few years, many good citizens and expert scientists alike have become strongly committed to the view that global warming caused by human carbon dioxide emissions poses a terrible danger to the future of planet Earth. As a consequence, climate change now ranks second only to terrorism as a topic for political grandstanding by western politicians.

Some simple science facts

To a scientist who is familiar with the factual evidence regarding climate change, this state of affairs is somewhat puzzling. For three key things are known. The first is that climate is always changing: change is what climate does. The second is that the rates and magnitudes of warming during the late 20th century fell within the limits of earlier natural climate change; that they had a mostly or even partly human origin cannot be demonstrated. And the third is that the average global temperature has not increased during the 8 years since 1998 (a warm El Nino year), despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide of 15 ppm (4%) over the same period.

Yet the public perception remains that dangerous warming is occurring now, and that it is caused by industrial carbon dioxide emissions. How can such a yawning gap have developed between public perception and what empirical science is telling us?

The answer, as any advertising executive can tell you, is money spent towards the specific end of spreading alarmism on climate. And lots of it: one estimate is that since 1990 the UN and western nations have spent more than $80 billion on climate research. Alarmist results from that research have been widely promulgated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and environmental NGOs such as WWF and Greenpeace.

But despite the massive expenditure, and the best efforts of the thousands of scientists whose endeavours it supports, the reality is that the human influence on global climate that is predicted from computer modelling has not yet been detected. A taxpayer might be tempted to conclude that this particular haystack does not contain a needle at all, but in actuality the human signal that must be there (for humans indubitably have an effect on local climates) is probably simply obscured within the noise and variation of the natural climate system.

How has this state of affairs come about?

The public, then, has been gulled into believing propaganda and speculative computer models rather than being informed with basic facts about climate change. There are two powerful causes of this misinformation. First, the lobbying activities of environmental NGOs and their allies. Second, the now doctrinal, and indeed sometimes intimidatory, nature of modern Western education systems. The indoctrination acts on all school children, but is reinforced strongly for those individuals who pursue tertiary education and emerge as today’s climate research scientists.

The problem can be understood by reading the following four letters in sequence. They were all sent to me in response to a newspaper opinion piece in which, as I do here, I questioned the prevailing mantra on the threat of dangerous human-caused climate change, and attempted to introduce some balanced commonsense into the public discussion.

Letter 1 - From a School pupil’s parent

I appreciated your recent article regarding the global warming hysteria. My children have been filled with dread by all of the hype coming through our school system, reinforced by interminable media support. I have patiently explained things as best I can, but being a simple grocer from the Midwest (USA) I have less credibility than the experts.

I’d appreciate a bit of steerage towards some good information (in addition to your article) that will help me refute the current pop-culture pseudo-science.

Letter 2 - From a University student

My classes in Geology taught me how warming AND cooling trends occur throughout the history of the planet. Why is it so hard for people to understand that the planet is old and has had many episodes of climatic change?

I write to you today, because I am now in my Junior year at a technical college in Virginia - I am enrolled in several Urban Affairs and Planning courses - one in particular is Environmental Planning. Time and again, I find myself at odds with nearly every one of my 55 classmates, in addition to the instructor, over the issue of global warming. Your article gives another voice to my own opinions. I guess my being 40+ years old in the mix of 20 year olds that surround me, perhaps may have something to do with it as well.

Letter 3 - From a civil servant at the start of a professional career

Earlier this year, the Financial Times Magazine contained an article about Sir Gus O'Donnell, Secretary to the Cabinet, Head of the Civil Service and former Permanent Secretary to H. M. Treasury. Here is the rhetorical question that he is reported to have posed to an audience of newly-joined civil servants (Whitehall's newest and brightest recruits):

"When you go to dinner parties do you want to be able to say that you work with an accountancy firm and you've spent the day helping some company pay less tax? Or do you want to say you've been working with the environment department to help save the planet, or with the G8 group of countries to reduce child poverty?"

Letter 4 - From a mid-career university climate teacher and researcher

The reason for the apparent absence of public suppport from scientists for a sceptical position on climate change is professional intimidation.

I have experienced it: letters to my CEO saying that I am irresponsible, snarly comments from students, personal threats from green wackos, condemnation by a national newspaper columnist (which caused me to take legal action), scowls and derision from all the folk who work for the government's main advisory department on climate change, and contempt from those of my colleagues who depend upon the research money on which global warming hysteria feeds.

Those scientists and university teachers who wish to avoid unemployment will not want to appear to take a rational position on the climate issue, not publicly anyway.

Conclusions

These examples were sent to me from three different countries, and I am writing from a fourth about which I have direct personal knowledge; thus the indoctrination and intimidation problems that they exemplify seem likely to be global in scope.

Rather than teaching about the Four Ages of Man, many western education and training systems have now reached the nadir of perpetrating instead the Four Stages of Indoctrination. Climate change is taught in school using the multitude of glossy publications and websites that are provided by alarmist interest groups, which include many government departments. The propaganda is as skilful as it is persuasive, for no expense is spared to spread the alarmist message. It is little wonder that well-meaning members of the public - not to mention sophisticated reporters writing for magazines such as Time, Scientific American and New Scientist - are duped into believing that a climate apocalypse is at hand. Climate reality is different, and is that the planet simply continues to go about the business that it knows best: change is what climate does, and nothing is more certain than that it will continue in future.

The biggest problem with the present-day unwarranted focus on human-caused global warming is that the hysteria surrounding it has distracted governments from the real climate change problem. Which is the threat of natural climate change, the most damaging aspect of which in turn is the future coolings that will occur; indeed, the next may already have started. Government climate planning is needed, but in a way that is responsive to both coolings and warmings, as they occur and if they prove dangerous. It is in this sensible fashion that we manage the aftermath of other unpredictable natural hazards, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

Control of human carbon dioxide emissions, however strict it is, will likely make no measurable difference to future climate. Attempts to “stop climate change” in this or any other fashion are therefore expensive exercises in utter futility.

Fear of radiation and fear of chimerical climate change well up from similar depths in the human psyche. Those who understand their true scientific basis have a deep obligation to allay the widespread and unnecessary public fear that exists regarding these phenomena, not to stimulate it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Bob Carter is a geologist and environmental scientist at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, where he is engaged in palaeoclimate research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------