Climate Change and Bad Science

So we come to the end of the first week of the climate summit in Copenhagen. We know a few more things now than we did when the meeting began. For example, it seems that the toilet facilities in the conference centre are not adequate for the number of people there. This cannot be helping negotiations. We know from IWC meetings that key figures missing in the toilet (or occasionally ‘gone shopping’) can change the whole nature and outcome of a debate.

We also know now that President Obama will join the summit towards its end next week, further signalling serious engagement from the US.

To coincide with the summit Bristol University has launched some scary new information about ocean acidification (another product of excess CO2 in the atmosphere) which underlines a significant threat to marine systems (although I cannot find a link to paper on this just advance press notice – so I cannot point you at the research yet).

Back in Copenhagen, there is also an offer on the table for a substantive contribution from Europe (with the UK proffering a major part of this) to help the developing nations.

This all seems surprisingly positive given early concerns that nothing would be agreed. Is it possible that the Copenhagen is going to produce something meaningful? Well, there is a way to go yet.

What is less positive is the outburst of outspoken views of the climate-change ‘nay-sayers’ who continue to state that this is all a big con. Indeed it is reported that only about half the people in the UK believe climate change is a problem. This is a real problem for the negotiating politicians because they need a strong public mandate in order to be able to do their jobs. The journalist Ben Goldacre writing in the Guardian today (Saturday 12^th) suggests that part of the reason for public doubt is because the government has a bad reputation in its use of science. Politicians, he suggests, are simply not trusted in their use of science.

We probably all have some sympathy with this. But what do those governments seeking a negotiation and pledging money to help do so even at this difficult economic time, have to gain beyond addressing this urgent threat?  Equally, what have all these scientists standing together in their call for action got to benefit? Promotion of their careers? There could be an element of this. There is no doubt that climate scientists have become important scientists as this issue has developed. But they could still be important and successful scientists without making a call for action which some characterise as extreme. Indeed there is a risk to them as the recent spin and extreme scrutiny of some emails from the University of East Anglia may show.

Historically, we have had scientists being given a very hard time over other emergent issues. This is not new. Powerful players may not like news that counters their economic interests. The breaking of the news about the dangers of organochlorine pollutants in aquatic systems is one example. Marine noise pollution is another such issue and we are still deep in the debates with this about how far the science can go and how precautionary noise users and conservation managers need to be.

Goldacre, who writes a regular and fascinating column in the Guardian called ‘Bad Science’ where he typically debunks poor use of science, suggests that there is a recognizable repeating of themes in the arguments of the climate change nay-sayers. The same arguments come up again and again. They know the answers to these arguments but they make them anyway and some (who have not heard the arguments) continue to be affected by them.

We deal in lots of issues where science does not provide any simple answers at WDCS. I am not sure that I believe in unbiased science. Scientists are after all only people with view and aspirations like the rest of us (no matter how much some may like to dress this up). However there is an overwhelming and unprecedented weight of scientific support which says climate change is here and human activities, particularly the discharges of carbon dioxide, are the primary cause. The final leg of this situation is that action needs to come fast.

Source: Bad Science

Finally one thing that is nagging at the back of my brain is the issue of whatever agreement the nations reach in Copenhagen, how will it be policed? A country might agree to cut its emissions by a percentage but how will anyone know if this is actually successful. How can an independent check on a country’s emissions be made. I hope some smart people somewhere are thinking about this.

For regular updates from the Climate conference try the BBC's blog by Richard Black.