RE: “The scientific consensus on
climate change”
From: Benny Peiser
To: Science
Web Submission ID: 56001
Submitted: 4 January 2005
First Author Name: Benny J
Peiser
Address: Faculty of Science
Henry Cotton Campus
Liverpool John Moores
University
15-21 Webster Street
Liverpool L3 2ET UNITED
KINGDOM
E-mail: b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk
Phone: 0151 231 4338
Fax: 0151 231 4353
Click here to edit this
author.
Other Authors: (none)
Information Entered Title :
Type: Letter
Letter Details:1. N. Oreskes
(2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol 306, Issue
5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004
Abstract:
Letter Text:
On December 3rd, only days
before the start of the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), Science Magazine published the
results of a study by Naomi Oreskes (1): For the first time, empirical evidence
was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the
anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.
Oreskes claims to have
analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords
"climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the
keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that
almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2). What
happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures
were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the
Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today;
that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that
climate modeling is highly uncertain?
These objections were put to
Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that
there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes,
her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on
"global climate change" (3).
Her use of three keywords
instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of
magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate
change" comes up with 1247 documents). Since the results looked
questionable, I decided to replicate the Oreskes study.
METHOD
I analysed all abstracts
listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords
("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents
listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details
and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six
categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):
1. explicit endorsement of
the consensus position
2. evaluation of impacts
3. mitigation proposals
4. methods
5. paleoclimate analysis
6. rejection of the
consensus position.
7. natural factors of global
climate change
8. unrelated to the question
of recent global climate change
RESULTS
The results of my analysis
contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:
Of all 1117 abstracts, only
13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.
322 abstracts (or 29%)
implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments
of envisaged global climate change.
Less than 10% of the
abstracts (89) focus on "mitigation".
67 abstracts mainly focus on
methodological questions.
87 abstracts deal
exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate
change.
34 abstracts reject or doubt
the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed
warming over the last 50 years".
44 abstracts focus on
natural factors of global climate change.
470 (or 42%) abstracts
include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any
direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas
emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.
DISCUSSION:
According to Oreskes, 75% of
the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three
categories, "either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus
view". This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only
424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three
categories.
It also shows that many
abstracts on "evaluation of impact" and "mitigation" do not
discuss which drivers are key to global climate change, instead often focusing
exclusively on the possible effects of elevated CO2 levels on plant growth and
vegetation. Many do not include any implicit endorsement of the 'consensus
view' but simply use certain assumptions as a basis for often hypothetical
impact assessments or mitigation strategies.
Quite a number of papers
emphasise that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent
climate change (4). My analysis also shows that there are almost three times as
many abstracts that are sceptical of the notion of anthropogenic climate change
than those that explicitly endorse it (5, 6, 7).
In fact, the explicit and implicit
rejection of the 'consensus view' is not restricted to individual scientists.
It also includes distinguished scientific organisations such as the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists:
"The earth's climate is
constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural
climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable
estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is
available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range
of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on
global climate at this time" (8)
This is not to deny that
there is a majority of publications that, although they do not empirically test
or confirm the view of anthropogenic climate change, go along with it by
applying models based on its basic assumptions. Yet, it is beyond doubt that a
sound and unbiased analysis of the full ISI databank will find hundreds of
papers (many of which written by the world's leading experts in the field) that
have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a
"scientific consensus on climate change". The truth is, that there is
no such thing!
In light of the data
presented above (evidence that can be easily verified), Science should withdraw
Oresekes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the
integrity of science.
References
1. N. Oreskes (2004). The
scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686, 3
December 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/con
2. ISI Web of Science
(http://www.webofscience.com/)
3.
http://davidappell.com/archives/00000497.htm
4.) C. M. Ammann et al., for
instance, claim to have detected evidence for "close ties between solar
variations and surface climate", Journal of Atmospheric and
Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191-201. While G.C. Reid stresses:
"The importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over
the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies."
Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-17th century. Climate
Change. 37 (2): 391-405
5) H.R. Linden (1996) The
evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment,
21:31-67.
6) Russian scientists K.
Kondratyev and C Varotsos criticise "the undoubtfully overemphasised
contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change". K.
Kondratyev and C Varotsos (1996). Annual Review of Energy and the Environment.
21: 31-67
7) M.E. Fernau, W.J.
Makofske, D.W. South (1993) Review and Impacts of climate change uncertainties.
Futures 25 (8): 850-863.
8) L.C. Gerhard and B.M.
Hanson (2000) AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471
From: science_editors@aaas.org
[mailto:science_editors@aaas.org]
Sent: 04 January 2005 11:07
To: Peiser, Benny
Subject: Thank you for your
WebSubmission.
Dear author:
Thank you for using
Science's Web submission site.
It will take approximately
one business day to process the receipt of your
submission. If you are
notified that one or more of your uploaded files
is unreadable, you will need
to return to the site to replace the
unreadable files. In order
to return to the site, you will need to have
the following information:
First Author's Last Name:
Peiser
Corresponding Author's Email
Address: b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk
Web Submission ID: 56001
Should you need to return to
the site, please use the following link:
http://www.submit2science.org/ws/valreturn.asp
Questions about your
submission may be addressed to us at
science_editors@aaas.org
Sincerely,
The Editors
----------
From: Etta Kavanagh
[mailto:ekavanag@aaas.org]
Sent: 18 February 2005 18:17
To: Peiser, Benny
Subject: Your Letter to the
Editor of SCIENCE
Dear Dr. Peiser,
A couple of weeks ago, you
submitted a Letter to the Editor on Naomi
Oreskes' Essay "The
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. In its
current form, it is too long
for a Letter, but we would consider a
shorter version if you are
willing to edit it. It should be 500 words or
less, not counting the
references. A correction dealing with the mistake
in the search terms
("global climate change" vs. "climate change") was
published in our Jan. 14
issue.
Best regards,
Etta Kavanagh
Associate Letters Editor
SCIENCE
ekavanag@aaas.org
Department e-mail:
science_letters@aaas.org
-----------
From: Peiser, Benny
Sent: 23 February 2005 14:13
To: Etta Kavanagh
[ekavanag@aaas.org]
Subject: Letter to the
Editor of SCIENCE
Dear Etta Kavanagh
Please find attached my
revised letter which I have shortened
below the 500 words limit. I
will submit the letter also in
electronic form via your
website.
With best regards
Benny Peiser
Liverpool John Moores
University
----------
e-letter to Science Magazine
sent: 23 February 2005
---------
Your Websubmission ID is 58332.
Below is a summary of the information you have entered.
First Author Name: Benny
Peiser
Address: Faculty of Science
Liverpool John Moores University
15-21 Webster Street
Liverpool L3 2ET UNITED KINGDOM
E-mail:
b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk
Phone: 0151 231 4338
Other Authors: (none)
Information Entered Title :
Type: Letter
Letter Details: N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate
change. Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686, 3 December 2004
Abstract: As requested by Associate Letters Editor Etta Kavanagh,
I have revised and shortened my letter below.
Letter Text:
Oreskes (1,2) presents empirical evidence that appears to show a
unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global
warming. Oreskes also claims that this universal agreement had not been
questioned even once in the peer-reviewed literature since 1993. Her assertion
has been extensively reported ever since.
I replicated her study in order to assess the accuracy of its results.
All abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same
keywords ("global climate change") were assessed (3). The results of
my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of
all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.
However, 34 abstracts reject or question the view that human activities are the
main driving force of "the observed warming over the last 50 years"
(4).
Oreskes claims that "none of these papers argued [that current
climate change is natural]". However, 44 papers emphasise that natural
factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change (5).
The most significant discrepancy with Oreskes' results concern abstracts
that are undecided whether human activities are the dominant driving force of
recent warming. My analysis shows that a significant number of abstracts reject
what Oreskes calls the 'consensus view'. In fact, there are almost three times
as many abstracts that are unconvinced of the notion of anthropogenic climate
change than those that explicitly endorse it (6).
Even if there is disagreement about any of these papers, it is highly
improbable that all 34 are ambiguous. After all, the explicit and implicit
rejection is not restricted to individual scientists (7). It also includes
distinguished scientific organisations such as the American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, which formally rejects the view that anthropogenic
factors are the main trigger of global warming:
"The earth's climate is constantly changing owing to natural
variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent
geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced
greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of
human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great,
there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time"
(8).
Despite this manifest scepticism, I do not wish to deny that a majority
of publications goes along with the notion of anthropogenic global warming by
applying models based on its basic assumptions. It is beyond doubt, however,
that an unbiased analysis of the full ISI databank, which comprises almost
12,000 abstracts, will find hundreds of papers (many of which written by the
world's leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and
outright rejection of the concept of a "scientific consensus on climate
change". The truth is, there is no such thing!
In light of the data presented above, Science Magazine should withdraw
Oreskes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the
integrity of science.
References
1. N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change.
Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686, 3 December 2004
(http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)
2. N. Oreskes (2005) Correction. Science, Vol 307, Issue 5708, 355
3. ISI Web of Science, (http://www.webofscience.com/)
4.) Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 include abstracts. The 1117 abstracts
analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes, plus two
categories (#7,8) which I added: 1. explicit endorsement of the consensus
position; 2. evaluation of impacts; 3. mitigation proposals; 4. methods; 5.
paleoclimate analysis; 6. rejection of the consensus position; 7. natural
factors of global climate change; 8. unrelated to the question of recent global
climate change. While 29% of the documents implicitly accept the 'consensus
view', these papers mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global
climate change. 470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global
climate change" but do not include any direct or indirect link or
reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone
anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.
5.) C. M. Ammann et al., for instance, claim to have detected evidence
for "close ties between solar variations and surface climate",
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191-201.
While G.C. Reid stresses: "The importance of solar variability as a factor
in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in
recent studies." Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-17th
century. Climate Change. 37 (2): 391-405.
6.) Russian scientists K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos criticise "the
undoubtfully overemphasised contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global
climate change"; K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos (1996). Annual Review of
Energy and the Environment. 21: 31-67. M.E. Fernau at al. stress: "More
and better measurements and statistical techniques are needed to detect and
confirm the existence of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change, which currently
cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability in the historical
record. Uncertainties about the amount and rate of change of greenhouse gas
emissions also make prediction of the magnitude and timing of climate change
difficult", M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South (1993) Review and
Impacts of climate change uncertainties. Futures 25 (8): 850-863.
7.) "Today, proponents of catastrophic anthropogenic climate
change, again claiming scientific consensus, threaten to create even greater
energy market distortions at large social and economic costs." H.R. Linden
(1996) The evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and the
Environment, 21:31-67.
8) L.C. Gerhard and B.M. Hanson (2000) AAPG Bulletin 84 (4):
466-471.
--------
From: Etta Kavanagh
[mailto:ekavanag@aaas.org]
Sent: 13 April 2005 22:39
To: Peiser, Benny
Subject: Your letter to
SCIENCE
Dear Dr. Peiser,
After realizing that the
basic points of your letter have already been
widely dispersed over the
internet, we have reluctantly decided that we
cannot publish your letter.
We appreciate your taking the time to revise
it.
Best regards,
Etta Kavanagh
Associate Letters Editor
SCIENCE
ekavanag@aaas.org
Department e-mail:
science_letters@aaas.org
---------
From: Peiser, Benny
Sent: 14 April 2005 15:37
To: 'Etta Kavanagh'
Cc: 'dkennedy@aaas.org'
Subject: RE: Your letter to
SCIENCE
Dear Etta Kavanagh
I am extremely disenchanted
to hear that you have decided against publication of my letter.
I would be grateful if you
could send me evidence for your claim hat "the basic points of
[my] letter have already
been widely dispersed over the Internet." As far as I am aware,
neither the details nor the
results of my analysis have been cited anywhere. In any case,
don't you feel that SCIENCE
has an obligation to your readers to correct manifest errors?
After all, these errors
continue to be employed by activists, journalists and science organisations (as
I have informed you on a number of occasions since January).
A statement by the Royal
Society from March 2005, for instance, uses Oreskes' flawed
study as a key argument in
the climate change debate:
"In the journal Science
in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers
on climate change published
in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found
that three-quarters of the
papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view
expressed in the IPCC 2001
report that human activities have had a major impact on climate
change in the last 50 years,
and none rejected it" http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=2986
Aside from the purely
technical matter of Oreskes' factual errors, does SCIENCE really want
to stand behind her bizarre
claim of a complete scientific consensus on global warming?
Are you not aware that most
observers know only too well that there is absolutely *no*
consensus within the
scientific community about global warming science? If not, let me
remind you:
A recent international
survey among some 500 climatologists found that "a quarter of
respondents still question
whether human activity is responsible for the most recent
climatic changes."
As Professors Hans von
Storch and Nico Stehr have stressed:
"The public statements
made by well-known German climate researchers create the impression
that the scientific
fundamentals of the climate problems have essentially been solved.
They claim that the
scientific community has already established the conditions for taking
concerted action. This is a
view that in fact does not correspond to the situation in
the scientific community.
That's because a significant number of climatologists are by
no means convinced that the
underlying issues have been adequately addressed. Last year,
for example, a survey of
climate researchers from all over the world revealed that a quarter
of respondents still
question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent
climatic changes" (Der
Spiegel, 24 January 2005; http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html).
Even Tony Blair has
emphasised the remaining uncertainties and ongoing scientific
debates among climate
scientists:
"So it would be true to
say the evidence [on anthropogenic global warming] is still
disputed. It would be wrong
to say that the evidence of danger is not clearly and
persuasively advocated by a
very large number of entirely independent and compelling
voices. They are the majority.
The majority is not always right; but they deserve to
be listened to" (Tony
Blair, Davos Speech, 26 January 2005;
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7006.asp)
I very much regret your
decision to reject my letter using a contrived technicality as
an excuse. Obviously, your
refusal leaves me no option than to publicise the results of
my analysis somewhere else
(results which anyone can of course verify) - but also to
deplore the sad reality of
your refusal to publish corrections of a fatally flawed paper.
With best regards
Benny Peiser
Liverpool John Moores
University
Faculty of Science
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm
Naomi Oreskes: “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position.”
Below is a list of
abstracts (found in the same ISI data set) that reject the “consensus
position”.
Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate
Issues: Annual report
Gerhard LC, Hanson BM
AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000
Abstract: The AAPG Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues has studied the
supposition of human-induced climate change since the committee’s inception in
January 1998. This paper details the progress and findings of the committee
through June 1999, At that time there had been essentially no geologic input
into the global climate change debate. The following statements reflect the
current state of climate knowledge from the geologic perspective as interpreted
by the majority of the committee membership. The committee recognizes that new
data could change its conclusions, The earth’s climate is constantly
changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate
variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of
potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to
test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural
variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global
climate at this time.
Review and Impacts of
Climate-change Uncertainties
Fernau ME, Makofske WJ, South DW
Futures 25 (8): 850-863 Oct 1993
Abstract: This article examines the status of the scientific uncertainties in
predicting and verifying global climate change that hinder aggressive policy
making. More and better measurements and statistical techniques are needed
to detect and confirm the existence of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change,
which currently cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability in the
historical record. Uncertainties about the amount and rate of change of
greenhouse gas emissions also make prediction of the magnitude and timing of
climate change difficult. Because of inadequacies in the knowledge and
depiction of physical processes and limited computer technology, predictions
from existing computer models vary widely, particularly on a regional basis,
and are not accurate enough yet for use in policy decisions. The extent of
all these uncertainties is such that moving beyond no-regrets measures such as
conservation will take political courage and may be delayed until scientific
uncertainties are reduced.
Letter by Dennis Bray
submitted to Science on 22 December 2004
http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf
Title: The Not So Clear
Consensus on Climate Change
Author: Dennis Bray
Affiliation: GKSS
Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germany
Abstract
One of the most heavily and
most publicly contested scientific consensus in the last decade has been in
the debate concerning
climate change, namely if it is the result of natural causes or of
anthropogenic activity. Using evidence
from survey questionnaires distributed among climate scientists, the following
suggests that consensus among climate scientists might not be as clear as
sometimes depicted.
Scientific consensus seems
to be a key word in science to policy transitions, particularly in those cases
where uncertainty and risk are high, those issues labeled as post-normal
science. [1] One of the most heavily and most publicly contested scientific
consensus in the last decade has been in the debate concerning climate change,
namely if it is the result of natural causes or of anthropogenic activity.
Oreskes [2] claims that evidence suggests that there is indeed a scientific
consensus of anthropogenic induced climate change as stated by the
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Using evidence from survey
questionnaires distributed among climate scientists, the following suggests
that consensus among climate scientists might not be as clear as depicted by
Oreskes. The inset to Oreskes essay suggests that “Without substantial
disagreement, scientists find human activities are heating the earth’s
surface”. By reviewing 928 abstracts Oreskes concludes that “Remarkably, none
of the papers disagreed with the consensus position”. Oreskes goes on to argue
that “This analysis shows that scientists publishing in peer-reviewed literature
agree with IPCC, the national Academy of Sciences and the public statements of
their professional societies. [While on the other hand] Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion,
disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is not
correct [emphasis added].
Oreskes’ main conclusion
seems to be that “...there is a scientific consensus on the reality of
anthropogenic climate change”. Results of surveys of climate scientists
themselves indicate the possibility that Oreskes’ conclusion is not as obvious
as stated.
In the results of a survey
of climate scientists conducted in 2003 [3] one question on the survey asked
“To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result
of anthropogenic causes? A value of 1 indicates “strongly agree” and a value of
7 indicates “strongly disagree”. Countries, and number of responses from each
country are as follows:
USA n = 372;
Canada n = 14;
Germany n = 56;
Italy n = 14;
Denmark n = 5;
Netherlands n = 4;
Sweden n = 5;
France n = 5;
U.K. n = 18;
Australia n = 21;
Norway n = 3;
Finland n = 3;
New Zealand n = 6;
Austria n = 3;
Ethiopia n = 1;
South Africa n = 3;
Poland n = 1
Switzerland n = 7;
Mexico n = 3;
Russia n = 1;
Argentina n = 1;
India n = 3;
Spain n = 2
Japan n = 3;
Brazil n = 1;
Taiwan n = 1;
Bulgaria n = 1
To the question posed above
there were 530 valid responses. Descriptive statistics are as follows:
Mean = 3.62; Std. Error of
mean = .080; Median = 3.00; Std. deviation = 1.84; Variance = 3.386
Frequencies:
1 strongly agree 50 (9.4%
of valid responses)
2 134 (25.3% of valid
responses)
3 112 (21.1% of valid
responses)
4 75 (14.2% of valid
responses)
5 45 (8.5% of valid
responses)
6 60 (10.8% valid
responses)
7 strongly disagree 54
(9.7% of valid responses)
These results, i.e. the
mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong and only
9.4% of the respondents “strongly agree” that climate change is mostly the
result of anthropogenic causes. This is however, a slight rise in consensus of
the same survey conducted in 1996 [4] that resulted in a mean of 4.1683 to the
same question (Five countries – USA, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Denmark only
in 1996 survey, N = 511).
In the 1996 survey only
5.7% of the valid responses “strongly agreed” that climate change is mostly the
result of anthropogenic causes.
In fact, the results of the
two surveys even question the Oreskes’ claim that the majority of climate
scientists agree with the IPCC, although this has improved somewhat between
1996 and 2003. In the 1996 survey only 8.2% of the valid responses ‘strongly
agreed’ with the statement that the IPCC reports accurately reflect the
consensus of thought within the scientific community while in 2003 the number
rose to 22.8%. While there is
a shift to a greater level
of consensus the results however, do not substantiate Oreskes’ claim. Lacking
in Oreskes’ approach to analysis is any notion of the dynamics of ‘scientific
consensus’.
References
1. Funtowicz, S. and J.
Ravetz. 1992 “Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal
science.” in Krimsky, S. and D. Golding (eds.) Social Theories of Risk London.
Praeger 1992.
2. Oreskes, Naomi. “The
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” Science Vol.306, 3 December 2004 Vol.
1686
3. Bray, D. and Hans von
Storch “The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change, 2003”
4. Bray, D. and Hans von
Storch “The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change, 1996”
---------
NOTE: Professor Dennis
Bray's letter was submitted to Science in response to the Oreskes essay. It was
rejected. In fact, the editors of Science refused to publish any
of the numerous letters critical of the Oreskes study. No wonder many readers
of Science believe that there is a universal consensus among climate
researchers Neither Bray nor von Storch are climate "sceptics"
themselves. Indeed, they are vocal critics of global warming
"scepticism" in most of its forms and shapes. Nevertheless, both
researchers are only too aware that the reality of scepticism is evidently
present within the climate science community, and to a degree that is more
significant than commonly thought.
OpenDemocracy, 10 May 2005
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-129-2490.jsp
Benny Peiser
As long as science is
uncertain about the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in the Earth’s
atmosphere, the public are justified in keeping an open mind, says Benny
Peiser.
We often hear the claim
that the science of climate change is settled, that there is general agreement
that humans have been causing most of the recent warming trend, and that it
will all end in global disaster unless we “do something about it”. Let me state
at the outset that I am not sure any of these blanket claims are accurate.
Yes, there has been great progress
in our understanding of climate dynamics in recent years. Yes, most
climatologists are convinced that global warming is mainly due to humans. And
yes, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions undoubtedly have an effect on the
global mean temperature. What we don’t know, however, is how much of an effect.
More importantly, most researchers who support the theory of anthropogenic
global warming are by no means agreed that it will result in large-scale
calamity even if CO2 emissions were to double.
Significant gaps in our
understanding of terrestrial climate remain. Only last week, new research
revealed that we don’t know very much about the amount of the sun’s energy that
is absorbed by the Earth and the amount reflected back into space (see here). We
know even less about how this process effects temperatures.
Neither do we genuinely
understand the causes and effects of solar variability and how it alters the
climate. Nevertheless, the idea that the sun, more so perhaps than humans, is
the principal driver of terrestrial climate has been gaining ground in recent
years. In March 2005, Jan Veizer, one of Canada’s top Earth scientists,
published a comprehensive review of recent findings and concluded that
“empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the
principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential
amplifiers.” (see Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective From Four Billion
Years Of The Carbon Cycle). I don’t know whether Veizer is right, but I believe
his findings should be carefully assessed instead of being ignored or
disparaged because they go against the grain.
As David King points out in
his contribution to the openDemocracy debate, the majority of scientists and
science organisations endorse the view that humans are to blame for recent
climate change. Nevertheless, this support is not universal. A number of
distinguished scientific organisations – such as the Russian Academy of
Sciences (RAS) or the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) –
remain sceptical.
Indeed, the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), an international organisation of
more than 30,000 Earth scientists, has formally rejected the view that
anthropogenic factors are the main drivers of global warming, stressing: “The
earth’s climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth
processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater
than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes.
Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate
change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no
discernible human influence on global climate at this time”.
A recent survey among some
500 international climate researchers found that “a quarter of respondents
still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent
climatic changes”. How decision-makers and the interested public deal with
these scientific doubts and uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital
for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism
are not scorned or curbed for political reasons.
--------
Benny Peiser is a social
anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University and the editor of the
Cambridge Conference Network (CCNet). His research focuses on the effects of
environmental change and catastrophic events on contemporary thought and
societal evolution.
Copyright 2005,
OpenDemocracy