Should we still be debating the science of climate change?...

Climate change is happening. We all know it. The poles are melting faster than expected and 2010 is expected to be one of the warmest years on record. But the cause of climate change is still up in the air.

The latter statement might strike some as an environmental blasphemy. This blog must be endorsed by the big oil companies and whale nukers, they will say, simply prolonging this dangerously unnecessary debate. This would be an easy argument to agree with, at least until the famed 'Climategate'.

For those of you unfamiliar with Climategate, it is the title given to the series of leaked (after someone hacked in) emails between scientists at the University of East Anglia in England, one of the most prestigious climatic research centres in the world. The emails revealed how climate scientists played with the data in order to have it reveal that warming was occuring (which it originally had not).

This has sparked a renewed argument for the world's climate sceptics and thrown a giant screw into the already complex issue of dealing with climate change. But not only has it given hope to the sceptics, it has also led some to climb back on the fence. For example, The Economist, a very prestigious, yet business-friendly news magazine has since published several articles stating that the issue should still be up for debate, if only to hear both sides equally. Prior to the release of Climategate, the magazine was gung-ho about human beings' involvement in climate change. Now, they are a little more cautious.

Who can blame them and others sitting on the fence? After all, some sceptics have long argued that anthropogenic climate change is a meditated and manufactured crisis designed to advance the agendas of a select few. Climategate adds weight to that argument. Or at least, for the less radical believers, Climategate might lead some to believe that climate change won't be as bad as we think. It not only makes it easier to think we don't cause climate change (and therefore shouldn't do anything about it) but also leaves those with significant public influence to take a step back.

For me, this whole case provides an interesting dynamic. Much of my coursework has included a theme of inclusive participation and respecting all sides to big debates. Indeed, ignoring the views of various stakeholders has gotten us into some of our biggest troubles throughout history, environmental or otherwise. Is ignoring the views of sceptics any different, especially when Climategate provides them with some fairly telling evidence?

But then again, if climate change is as dangerous as it's reputed to be, perhaps we should just press ahead and ignore the sceptics. Elizabeth May certainly thinks so. During the Munk Debates on the eve of the Copenhagen Conference, May repeatedly stated that the debate taking place (is climate change our defining crisis?) was the wrong debate and we should have moved on by now. After all, there is still overwhelming evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change from a whole whack of prestigious global societies and institutions.

That was a fact I have held strongly to since Climategate came about and, despite the aforementioned comments about The Economist, found some additional strength to that argument in the magazine's letters to the editor:

I agree with you that dissent and peer review should not be silenced, but “scepticism” and “consensus” must be evaluated by their true weight. Where is the dissent and alternative theories in your other science articles? Why don’t you present an alternative argument from Christian Scientists in your reporting on cancer therapies, for example? While it is true that whether or not I could make the Manchester United football team is a yes or no answer, that does not mean my chances as a 39-year-old flappy scientist are 50:50. My chances are less than 1%.


The vast majority of climate-change scientists hold that global warming is caused by burning too many fossil fuels. The consensus view of the American National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society and the respective groups of every advanced nation on climate change cannot be ignored while we wait for an unobtainable golden thread of evidence.


Lou Zeidberg
Monterey, California

Lou's argument is very strong and gives good reason to stop spending a great deal of our efforts in this debate. So to answer the question given in this post's title, no, we shouldn't be debating it, at least not to the degree we are now and even in the face of events like Climategate.

Let me finish with something we should always keep in mind when thinking about the climate question. If I'm wrong, it's not the end of the world. Literally. But if I'm right and we don't do enough in time to stop climate change, it very well could be, at least for human beings. Tim's post on Greg Craven's outlines this very clearly:


we can take action on "global warming" and spend trillions of dollars doing this. But, what if global warming is "false"? Then we run ourselves into a global depression. Or we spend trillions of dollars and we benefit through this as it greatly minimizes the risks associated with global warming. Or we do nothing (status quo) and global warming does not prove to be as catastrophic as it was predicted to be. Here we do not take action, nothing significant happens and we save $$$. And if we don't take action and it actually happens.... well, then we are screwed.    


Of the two downsides, is a global depression worse than well, us being screwed? What's the bigger risk?