No

by Jimmy Nightingale

Created on: April 01, 2009   Last Updated: December 07, 2009

I wish it were. Sadly, the vast weight of scientific opinion points to it being very real. It is about as close to a certainty as you can get in science.

So how can I be so sure? After all, I have no qualifications in any field remotely related to climate science. I do what I've learned works very well for acquiring an understanding of an area beyond my current sphere of knowledge. I read voraciously and actively question everything I am told. Most importantly, I look to the experts. If the overwhelming weight of expert opinion supports a particular position, there is a very strong chance that it is the correct position. Yes, there have been occasions where the experts can be wrong, although I can't think of anything in the last 20-30 years that falls into this category, but if you are a betting person, it is safer to go with the odds.

The simple fact is that every scientific organisation of national or international standing supports the view that global warming is real. The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released in 2007 summarises the peer-reviewed literature on the subject and concludes that the globe is warming and at a rate that is unprecedented in human experience. The IPCC and the major scientific organisations around the world go beyond this to point the finger at human activity as the dominant cause of the anomalous warming since about 1850.

And herein lies the problem. I think that most people would have no difficulty accepted the physical basis for global warming if it wasn't in part directly related to our behaviour. There is a cognitive dissonance between accepting that the globe is warming, that it is a real problem and will create problems for future generations and acceptance that we are to blame and that some change of behaviour will be necessary to deal with the problem. Some people handle this by refusing to believe that there is a problem and rationalise their beliefs using whatever crumb of scientific knowledge they can find. You don't need to search very far to find blog sites claiming to debunk the current scientific understanding.

Others look at the problem from a purely monetary perspective or have some unshakeable faith that technological advances will come to the rescue. Neither of these views makes any sense. The Stern Review and a number of other reviews have adopted a risk management approach. The total cost of deal with global warming now is a very small proportion of GDP growth, whereas the cost of dealing with it later is significantly higher. This is the same way that risk assessors calculate insurance premiums. It is better to pay a small premium now than to be suffer major financial catastrophe when the unthinkable happens. Interestingly enough, the odds of having a motor vehicle accident are much higher than a business as usual approach to our greenhouse gas emissions not leading to huge problems by the end of this century.

Relying on future uncertain technology is just sheer folly - it is like driving full tilt at a brick wall, before air bags were invented, and hoping that something is going to save you. Yes, there is a chance that air bags might be invented and save future drivers, but that is little consolation as that brick wall looms before you. It is a more sensible approach to play the odds - brake, swerve, avoid the wall altogether or leave the car in the garage. Analogies aside, think about the issue. Oil and coal are concentrations of carbon that accumulated over millions of years. What possible process is there likely to be to get it out of the atmosphere within the space of a few decades? It makes more sense to try and avoid putting it there in the first place.

The problem is compounded by money and politics. Cognitive dissonance aside, governments like to be re-elected and it is a huge political risk to push a platform that is possibly going to cost people and business money. In the US, lobby groups apply pressure on politicians to avoid policy action that is going to be adverse to that group's interests and the bulk of these groups represent big business. On the subject of dealing with global warming, many of these big businesses, notably oil, mining, automobile manufacturing and electricity generation, will need to substantially restructure their operations if policy solutions go ahead. Dealing with climate change within their own business is viewed as an impediment, instead of as as opportunity.

It may appear that I've gone off on a tangent talking about why the weight of expert scientific opinion isn't accepted unequivocally and the politics and money involved, however they are irrevocably entangled. As an example, as effective a message that "An Inconvenient Truth" was to highlight the problem, it is a message that was lost on anyone with strong concervative leanings because of the messenger. Because the messenger was Al Gore, this is a message that they would refuse to hear. Worse still, they may not have had a view before, but because the messenger is Al Gore, they would refuse to believe the message and argue vehemently against it.

Whether global warming is real or not is a question that everyone needs to decide for themselves. And it is a question that everyone should address. If the scientists are right, global warming is going to lead to profound changes to both the Earth's environment and our own lifestyles (and our children's and subsequent generation's lifestyles). If they are wrong, yes, we may have sacrificed some economic growth, but we may have also made some tangible progress to moving away from an energy source where the greatest reserves are in parts of the world of questionable political stability. Done the right way, it can also create jobs and lead to a fundamental shift in the way that we view both the world and each other. As the global financial crisis deepens, the focus has shifted away from accumulation of worldly goods to more traditional values.

In taking a position on this question, try and ignore the politics and do the following:

1. Read as much as you can from expert sources. Use Google Scholar and check that the journal is reputable and subject to peer review. It doesn't guarantee 100 percent accuracy, but there is a very good chance that the underlying science is solid and a degree of rigour has been involved;

2. Take the media coverage with a grain of salt. Go to the source wherever possible (some require paid subscriptions to access and this may be difficult). The media thrives on sensationalism and their business is to sell papers and advertising space. This may not necessarily involve factual accuracy and not many journalists have academic qualifications in a scientific discipline;

3. Beware of bloggers. While there are some good ones out there (Real Climate, for example, whose principals are climate scientists), most of them are nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion and personal rants. You don't need qualifications or a record of academic publication to write a blog. As with the media above, don't accept anything at face value and go back to the original source; and

4. If it challenges the current scientific opinion, be sceptical. I don't mean this in a play the man, not the ball kind of way, but the current views concerning global warming have grown over tens of thousands of research papers and the role that human activity plays confirmed the same way, as well as painstakingly exploring every other possible explanation. Yes, there may be something that has been overlooked, but that is unlikely. Anyone who can come up with a convincing explanation that also explains why the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide cause by our burning of fossil fuels does not have an impact, will deservedly stand to win themselves a Nobel Prize and become very wealthy indeed. So anything promoting a glib explanation is very likely to have already been considered.

Learn more about this author, Jimmy Nightingale.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.