Dear Robin - Global warming science and climate policy face a severe and deepening crisis of credibility. The whole climate agenda is confronted by growing doubt and criticism, not least as a result of the so-called Climategate scandal, the Copenhagen fiasco and the revelations about the IPCC’s alarmist claims based on unreliable sources.
This crisis is shaking the scientific and political establishments to the core. The scientific community is haemorr haging integrity and authority at an unprecedented speed and scale. What we are witnessing is a growing backlash over the suppression of scientific data, the exaggeration of global warming impacts and the maltreatment of climate critics. While eminent scientists are suddenly calling for more openness and a dialogue with critics of the conventional view on global warming, the UK government has declared war on so-called climate sceptics who are rapidly gaining ground in the eyes of an increasingly sceptical public.
But how can anyone take the government seriously when it stubbornly fails to heed the advice by its own chief scientific adviser? Professor John Beddington has publicly rebuked scientists and politicians for exaggerating the impact of global warming and urged an honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change. In marked contrast, Ed Miliband, in an interview with your own paper last Sunday, revels in unqualified climate alarmism. He predicted that the next IPCC report, which is not scheduled to be finalised before September 2014, would show that the impact of global warming is more dramatic than the IPCC’s 2007 report implied.
Mr Miliband and his senior scientists are ignoring the most important advice outlined by the government’s chief scientific advisor: although the basic science of the greenhouse effect is sound (ie, more anthropogenic CO2 means more warming) what is uncertain is the magnitude and timescale of the effect. Future warming could be pronounced, it could be moderate or it could be insignificant. Moreover, it could be eclipsed by other factors that scientists admit are not well understood. Beddington has made clear that scientists don’t know for sure given the complexities of the climate system.
The problem with climate science and climate policy in the UK is that it is completely controlled by a group of individuals who are convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in order to scare the public into submission for costly policies.
Above all, the complete failure of Britain’s climate policy in Copenhagen shows that conventional climate policies have no future. What is necessary now is the development of alternative approaches that are politically realistic and economically feasible. In order for a new climate realism to be successful, the government and government agencies should start to engage and involve critics of conventional climate politics. Instead of continuing to follow the futile approaches and failed policies promoted by climate alarmists, policy makers would be well advised to introduce more balanced and more transparent assessments of climate science and policy research.
Best regards, Benny
Die vollständige Observer Debatte (plus 200 Kommentare) findet sich hier
