Climate change: Facts not feelings.

A fortnight of climate change talks has begun in Paris with more than 190 countries seeking agreement on measures to limit the world’s output of carbon gases and global warming. After the debacle of the last climate summit in Copenhagen six years ago, hopes are running high that this time, a deal will be struck. The main stumbling blocks in 2009 in the Danish capital were the distribution of carbon cuts and who would foot the bill. Developing countries argued, with some justice, that the Developed world had achieved its economic dominance by creating much of the pollution that now affects the planet. In trying to limit the rising carbon gas emissions of emerging economies, rich countries were seeking to preserve their economic dominance. Then there was the question of dollars and cents. Putting in place carbon capture and replacing fossil fuels for automobiles and power generation would impose an extra cost, which would be proportionately greater in the Developed world, simply because it had more work to do. This however ignored the reality that if evenly applied, the impact of worldwide investment would be canceled out. Also there is a tendency to think that when money is spent on environmental protection, it somehow disappears, never to be seen again. But of course the expenditure merely generates economic activity, albeit in new areas. There is, however, one big danger in these Paris talks which does not seem to have been appreciated. In the last 30 years, scientific opinion has moved slowly but in the end decisively to the view that it was human-created pollution that was responsible for global warming. It is on the basis of this scientific advice that the politicians are going to be basing their discussions over the next two weeks.  Unfortunately there is one element to this advice, which is not scientific. This is demonstrated by the virulence with which researchers have turned on other scientists who still say that they are not sure that carbon emissions are entirely responsible. This reaction is, to say the least, deeply unscientific. The whole principle of science is to always test results on the basis that challenging perceived wisdom can only be a good thing. Either the challenge leads to new findings or it serves to confirm existing understanding. Either way the challenge makes for better science. But those who still question the prime role of humans in global warming are denounced vehemently as “Climate Change Deniers”. Academic careers have been destroyed because a few scientists have chosen to try and swim against the tide. The vicious treatment meted out to these brave individuals has been deplorable. They may indeed be wrong. But it is their right, even their duty as scientists, to keep asking the difficult questions. One of these is that the planet has gone through radical environmental change before. There is a clear cycle that is little understood. Exceptional events, such as widespread dust from major volcanic eruptions have added to the mix. The doubters generally concede that reducing human emissions is bound to help but they are still unsure if there is not a more powerful set of natural, cyclical influences at work, which are being largely ignored in the Paris talks. The virulence with which the majority of climate scientists denounce anyone who disagrees with them demonstrates ridiculous emotion. And science is about facts, not feelings.