Oxford Union Debate, 19 May 2005

Benny Peiser, for the Proposition

Mr President, fellow debaters.

I am supporting today's Proposition because I am deeply concerned about the state of science and how alarmism is undermining it.

I am a social scientist who studies the effects of natural disasters on societies. I also research apocalyptic movements, both past and present, religious and secular.

I will argue that the exploitation of alarmism by apocalyptics is not a new phenomenon but has deep historical roots. Environmental alarmism is just the latest mutation of age-old, religious end-time prophecies into secular predictions of natural and man-made cataclysms.

None of the environmental horror scenarios has alarmed the public as much as the alleged peril of human-caused global warming. I will make a case that climate alarmism is the direct opposite of science, and that there is no cause for alarm.

In recent days, we have been warned that global warming is a greater threat than the rise of Adolf Hitler in the 1940s. According to Jim Hunter, a Scottish environmental campaigner, "Global warming is a more insidious and longer-term danger than Hitlerism, but it's one that could be far more deadly. Ultimately, it might extinguish humanity itself."

This preposterous hyperbole echoes the alarmist statement by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Dr Pachauri told an international climate conference in January that unless there are "very deep" cuts in CO2 emissions, humanity may not "survive". Such scare tactics are the typical traits of alarmism.

So what exactly is the difference between alarmism and science?

To start with, alarmism has a propensity for invoking worst-case scenarios. Alarmism necessitates the assertion of certitude and conviction. It abhors doubt or even-handed evaluation of evidence because any balanced assessment might delay political action which is regarded imperative.

Alarmism promulgates the worst case to the exclusion of any disagreeing or conflicting data and exaggerates the likelihood of disaster while ignoring its remote probability.

In short, alarmism is to science what a drunken job is to a tea-totaler: a capricious nuisance.

Science, on the other hand, requires a sober consideration of all relevant evidence. Instead of emphasising certainty and fervour, it readily admits knowledge gaps and ambiguity. It weighs up all data and arguments unconditionally - pro and con - and evaluates the evidence in an impartial, detached and fair-minded manner - irrespective of political considerations or implications.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying this is how science generally works today - but this is how science should be working.

In contrast, alarmism suffers from a manifest lack of scientific scrutiny. Instead of carefully weighing up and critically assessing the quality and reliability of the data, alarmists consistently select only the data and interpretations that seem to confirm their conviction that disaster is around the corner.

By and large, alarmists only discern and look for information that confirms their views while they ignore or underrate the relevance of any information that contradicts their gloomy predictions.

The fundamental flaw of alarmism is that it approaches any potential problem with the zeal of campaigners, and not with the dispassionate detachment and even-handed evaluation of scientists.

Take for example the recent statement by David Warrilow from the Department of the Environment. He told New Scientist that for the world, "to stand a good chance of preventing mass extinctions, droughts, runaway melting of icecaps and the Gulf Stream turning off, we have to keep temperature rise below 2°C from pre-industrial times" (New Scientist, 17 May 2005).

Of course, there is no evidence whatever that an increase by say another 1 or 1.5 degree Celsius would trigger mass extinctions, the runaway melting of the ice-caps and or the shut-down of the Gulf Stream. It is just hyperbole - pure alarmism.

More importantly, climate alarmists habitually ignore the potential economic and health benefits of warming temperatures. While magnifying the probable risks to health and mortality as a result of warmer temperatures, many underrate or simply discount the possible heath benefits of moderate warming.

Mr President.

The lack of a balanced approach to the issue of global warming has led to an extremely one-sided and alarmist perception of risk. In this viewpoint, only potential costs and disasters are emphasised. Yet, a sober and even-handed risk analysis of the most probable developments over the next one or two generations suggests that most societies will be able to adapt to moderate climate change. In short, there is absolutely no cause for alarm.

"This House believes that alarmism has replaced science in the global warming debate"
MOTION DEFEATED 56 VOTES IN FAVOUR / 219 VOTES AGAINST