When I was coordinating Greenpeace's "Sign On" campaign last year, I had a very simple policy when it came to climate change deniers: I would ignore their weak arguments like cancer specialists ignored the tobacco lobbyists. In both cases, responding only indulged in the goal to sow doubt in the minds of the pubic and it also fuelled unreliable, misinformed media attention.
But then it comes to light that, according to former UN Secretary General Kofi Anann, climate change is responsible for 300,000 deaths a year, right now. I can't ignore the insidious, morally repugnant arguments for inaction made by the climate deniers anymore.
The true definition of scepticism has been hijacked. The global governmental and scientific-body consensus that the climate is changing and we're responsible didn't come down from voices upon high but is based on careful and meticulous study and data accumulation. Being sceptical about scientific methodology, questioning the use of data and objectively assessing the result is the hallmark of good science. It is right to base your opinions after weighing up the facts sceptically, and this is the approach taken by all reputable scientific bodies. This is also the reason why in a way, I'd consider myself to be a sceptic. However, climate deniers try and argue that because scientific theories can theoretically be disproven, we should be sceptical about anthropogenic climate change and not act to reduce emissions. That's not scientific scepticism, that's planetary suicide when the body of evidence is so conclusive.
The deniers, without any compelling evidence that climate change isn't happening or is caused by something other than the massive amounts of greenhouse gases humans are putting into the atmosphere resort to highlighting inevitable tiny mistakes as proof.
For example, some irate climatologists put their personal frustrations into binary, and Climategate was born. The IPCC based part of one of its reports on a remark made by a little-known Indian scientist, and we had Glaciergate. A comment on the Amazon River, from a non peer reviewed report: Amazongate. Closer to home, we had the brouhaha of NIWA defending its own antipodean version of Climategate, facing accusations it had moved weather stations, and falsified a warming trend.
Climategate sold papers. Some readers relished the reassurance that their SUVs, air-freighted strawberries and frivolous globe-trotting might not be changing the climate. A convenient untruth. Publication after publication run stories on the 'scandal', often citing each other as evidence, while very little proper investigative journalism was actually done.
If we just step back and have a look at the whole issue, these are actually fairly minor inconsistencies. NIWA have adequately explained their temperature adjustments. They moved a few stations, and then applied the difference in temperature between the two locations to the temperature read-outs. Fairly straightforward, and something that's done all over the world which produces meaningful scientific results.
Likewise with Glaciergate. This was a statement claiming that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. It was soon discovered that this statement was based on a WWF report, which in turn was based on a speculative statement by a minor Indian scientist. Oddly enough though, the error wasn't identified by the sceptics, but by the scientists. The key point is the debate was around the date not whether the glaciers were melting because of climate change or not.
The scientists argue, and fair enough too, that one error, on one page, in one volume of a massive three volume report in no way disproves climate change. "We should also remember the overwhelming evidence still shows global warming is real and manmade...Arctic ice sheets are shrinking and droughts are spreading while nine of the last 10 years have been the hottest on record. Only rising emissions of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can explain that." said Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change.
The infuriating thing is that the explanation for all these few and far between errors doesn't seem to be enough. Climate change sceptics doggedly cling to every error, convinced that it must mean the downfall of anthropogenic climate change, proof it's a global conspiracy, the smoking gun that means we can keep happily polluting. A recently released Greenpeace report may give us some idea as to why their opposition is so vociferous.
Koch Industries is "probably the biggest company you've never heard of" and yet their money is being poured by the millions into some of the biggest lobbying organisations you probably have heard of. Between 2005 and 2008, Koch Industries outspent ExxonMobil, dishing out US$24.9m to lobby groups and sham scientific organisations opposing clean energy and climate change policy. The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute each received over US$1m and on cue, they are both opposing effective climate change legislation.
Acknowledging climate change and the pivotal role humans have had in creating the problem is important. Not only do we honour the scientists and experts who worked so hard in bringing the problem to our attention, but we also become aware of the impossible weight of our lifestyles on the resources of the planet. The solutions which mitigate our effect on the climate, as well as the measures we must take to adapt to the inevitable change can mean a better life for everyone. It makes sense to invest in clean energy, public transport, and smarter farming solutions. The economy isn't going to collapse if we phase out burning coal. In fact we will become more prosperous if our leaders developed innovative solutions for a low-carbon economy.
The Green Party last year released a report called "Getting There" which identifies exactly how we could reduce our emissions by the amount required to avert climate change at very little initial cost. This reduction then sets us up for greater prosperity further down the track. It's not difficult - simple measures like reintroducing fuel economy standards for new vehicles, afforestation of marginal land, even pest control in DoC forests: they all add up.
If we carry on the path of inaction, continuing to indulge in climate change deniers' fantasies about worldwide conspiracies: when our generation hits the retirement age we will be faced with serious problems. Our taxes, which throughout our working lives had been used to prop up dirty, climate destroying industries will now fail to look after us when we are line to receive societal gratitude for our hard-earned years of service. There are people benefiting from weak-arse climate legislation but it won't be us. In the years to come, our generation and our children's generation will be paying the real price of inaction, long after the media has finally grown bored of printing stories from climate cranks.
