Lab report

The dwindling brigade of climate change sceptics, up against an overwhelming scientific consensus, are now turning to economics. How long can they hold out?
March 22, 2007
Where now for climate sceptics?

The latest report by the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) comes as near to blaming global warming on human activities as any scientists are likely to, while adding that its consequences may be worse than we had feared. The IPCC has previously been so (properly) tentative that climate change sceptics will now have a hard time casting them as scaremongerers. So where does this leave the sceptics?

Many politicians and scientists are hoping they will now shut up. But that's to make the mistake of thinking this is an argument over scientific evidence.

Consider this: "As most of you have heard many times, the consensus of climate scientists believes in global warming. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. In science, consensus is irrelevant."

This is from Michael Crichton, the author of Jurassic Park, who has been giving speeches about the "myth" of climate change, and has even been summoned as an "expert witness" on the matter by the US Senate. We need only concede that the earth orbits the sun and that humans are a product of Darwinian evolution to see the sophistry in Crichton's absurd comment. But he is a smart fellow; stupidity can't account for it.

Some critics of the IPCC are obviously just protecting vested interests—ExxonMobil's funding of groups that peddle climate change disinformation, or the US government's interference in federally funded climate science, are as simple as that. But this isn't true scepticism—it is merely denial motivated by self-interest.

The real sceptics—strange bedfellows such as David Bellamy, Nigel Lawson, Melanie Phillips, a handful of real scientists and Crichton—are a different phenomenon. Some deep-rooted personal agenda leads these smart people to say false and silly things. It's less obvious what that agenda could be than it was for the "sceptics" who denied the link between HIV and Aids in the early 1990s. But what is immediately evident to the trained ear is that the sceptics' denials carry the classic hallmarks of the crank—a belief that one's own reasoning betters that of professionals (even though the errors are usually elementary), a victim mentality, an instant change of tack when refuted, and—always a giveaway—a historically naive invocation of Galileo's persecution. Of course, some of them simply tell outright lies too.

Bjørn Lomborg is a slightly different matter, since his objections focus less on denying climate change and more on denying the need to do anything about it. Nonetheless, although the economic arguments are complex, Lomborg's rhetoric—suggesting that because climate change is less pressing than, say, Aids, we should ignore it—is simplistic to a degree that again does not equate with his evident intelligence.

Economics is going to be the future battleground. Yes, the argument goes, climate change is happening, but that doesn't mean we should act to prevent it. Far better to adapt to it. This line has been pushed by heavier hitters than Lomborg, such as the economists William Nordhaus at Yale and Partha Dasgupta at Cambridge. The argument has some force in economic terms—which is perhaps not the main consideration if you live in coastal Bangladesh or on the Marshall islands—but economics was never intended for navigating such uncharted waters where we cannot rule out mass famine, decimation of biodiversity or unforeseen positive feedbacks that accelerate the warming.

Economists are right to say that we need informed responses, and that these must involve compromises. But if they turn now to economics, the celebrity sceptics will only betray their agenda. It's time to seek more reasoned voices of caution.

Avian or not, the flu will get you

How long before we witness the rise of the bird flu sceptic? They could be right in one sense. According to Albert Osterhaus, chairman of the European Scientific Working group on Influenza (ESWI), "Isolated outbreaks of avian influenza in Europe are… a problem in terms of economy, animal welfare and biodiversity, but the threat to public health will probably be manageable." But they'll almost certainly be wrong in another. The H5N1 virus is all too often portrayed as a bolt from the blue, like a bit of rotten luck. In truth, it's illustrative of a fact of life in the viral world, where, to put it bluntly, shit happens. Last November, leading US virologists Robert Webster and Elena Govorkova stated baldly that, "There is no question that there will be another influenza pandemic some day." The ESWI agrees, and warns that Europe is ill prepared for it. Even if H5N1 doesn't get us (by mutating into a form readily transmitted between humans), another virus will. Flu viruses are legion, and unavoidable. Here, at least, is one threat for which mitigation, not prevention, is the only option. H5N1 seems less transmissible in warmer weather, but one hopes even climate sceptics won't see that as a point in their favour.