We are now well into 2010, and this looks like being the year of the climate sceptic. This time last year I had thought that scepticism was on the wane, and that the pressure was building up very nicely for governments to bring in some real legislation to tackle climate change. I was wrong on both counts. The Copenhagen climate change meeting came up with a very weak resolution (1), and the climate sceptics have found renewed energy. What has happened to change the picture?

The first problem was the hacking into the University of East Anglia's computer system, and the publication online last autumn of many emails from their Climate Research Unit. It is notable that hardly anyone mentions that hacking into the system was a criminal act, and all the attention has focussed on the hacked emails. What the sceptics did was to search through hundreds of emails with a few keywords looking for anything that they could use to further their cause. They found a few sentences where the scientists involved had used colloquial language, and then took them out of context to "prove" that fiddling the data had been happening. I often think that if somebody hacked into Oxford Brookes University where I work and stole my emails they could fairly easily "prove" anything they liked about my research and publications.

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee investigated (March 2010), and completely exonerated Prof. Phil Jones, the main scientist involved, of any malpractice. They found that much of the raw data the sceptics wanted to see was already in the public domain, but did feel that the University had not been completely transparent in letting other data be released. But the committee conclusion was: "We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity."

The next attack has been on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), its reports, and all those associated with it. The IPCC consists of hundreds of the world's top climate scientists. The last IPCC report in 2007 has come in for particular criticism. In three very long volumes a few mistakes have been picked on. The biggest error concerned the date by which the Himalayan glaciers will totally melt. The 2007 report said this would happen by 2035, basing the date on an inaccurate prediction in "grey literature". This was a serious mistake that should have been picked up, but does not affect the major conclusions of the IPCC. A few mistakes in thousands of pages do not justify throwing the whole report out and disbanding the IPCC.

Incidentally, the Himalayan glaciers may not all go by 2035, but most of them are melting at an alarming rate, with dire predictions for the future.(2)

The IPCC has been attacked for alarmist propaganda, and for exaggerating the dangers from climate change. However, there are many instances where the IPCC has actually been shown to be too cautious in its predictions rather than alarmist. It is, in fact, a very conservative body, and its forecasts on melting of ice caps and sea level rise have been on the low side. Oddly the sceptics rarely attack on low predictions. In an effort to label the IPCC as alarmist the sceptic lobby picked on Sir John Houghton, its former co-chair, repeatedly claiming that he had stated, "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen." He had, in fact, never made this statement, but in desperation the sceptics found a similar sounding sentence from Sir John in an old newspaper article, took it out of context, and tried to pin this on him.(3)

Then the climate scientists themselves have been attacked for being on a "gravy train", hauling in large grants for their own personal benefit. The grants come in, but most of the money goes on hiring researchers to carry out the work, equipment and overheads to their institutions. Getting a grant for a senior scientist usually means taking on more work, and often the most they get out of it is funding for a trip to a conference. The truth is that hardly any scientists get rich - I should know!

So where are we now on climate scepticism? The science of human-induced global warming has, if anything, become even stronger in the years since the IPCC last reported in 2007. But the sceptical voices have increased in volume, particularly working through the blogosphere, and from certain newspapers. This has led to increased confusion amongst the general public, and several opinion polls have shown that concern over climate change has decreased in both the UK and the USA. We scientists have been doing a lot of soul searching in the last few months. How do we get across very complex science in a simple way to an increasingly sceptical public?

I will end by paraphrasing Al Gore. Of course it is a lot more convenient to be able to think that climate change is not happening, and that we can get on with life unhindered. But convenience does not equal truth.

Dr. Martin J. Hodson is an environmental scientist and is Operations Manager for the John Ray Initiative.

See http://www.hodsons.org

Copenhagen and the climate change crisis (JRI Briefing Papers– No. 19- 2010) is a detailed analysis of where we stand after the Copenhagen climate change conference by Sir John Houghton. http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php/2010/02/copenhagen-and-the-climate-change-crisis/
For a recent update on the Himalayan glaciers see: Larmer, B. (2010) The big melt. National Geographic (April 2010, pp. 60-79) http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/04/tibetan-plateau/larmer-text
For a good analysis of this story see: Holmes, J. (2010) Malice, misquotes and Media Watch. Feb 22nd 2010 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/22/2826604.htm?site=thedrum

Dr Martin Hodson, 21/04/2010

Feedback:

(page 1 2 3)

	Elanor (Guest)	01/05/2010 16:30
I appologise if that last line sounded arrogant, I'm just so upset at how people don't seem to care about the harm they are causing in the name of saving the planet. The reality of the situation is quite the reverse to the one being presented. Harming the lives of the poor, to save the world of an imaginary problem thats dressed up as the oposite is too much to take in sometimes.
	peterxyz	03/05/2010 22:14
In my view it does matter whether Anthropogenic Climate Change is supported by the evidence or not. As christians we could not base a campaign on something we considered to be false. It is worth noting that the committee chaired by Lord Oxborough has now also reported and found no evidence for scientific malpractice in its review of a sample of papers published by CRU. There is a good summary of the arguments challenging Anthropogenic Climate Change on Paul Cook's website skepticalscience together with responses. Numerous references are given to the published peer-reviewed literature.
	peterxyz	22/05/2010 08:42
The programme "Springwatch - signs of change with Chris Packham" in the Springwatch 2010 series is well worth watching - if you are quick you should be able to catch it on the BBC i-player. it looks at some of the changes that are taking place - there is a fascinating interview with someone who has been recording the date buds open since 1949 - it is happening earlier. Also a short interview with Andy Gosling on nesting habits - another long term study. The programme also looks at some of the implications of climate change for UK wildlife - winners & losers - and how individuals can help.
	Ruth Valerio	23/05/2010 20:51
Yes, it's sobering seeing the changes that are taking place.
	Martin Hodson (Guest)	22/06/2010 11:15
I won't add to what I have already said at this time, but thought you might be interested in the latest paper on the subject published in PNAS: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract?sid=89e2bd12-0ff6-4078-9043-70ba3ca98381 Fairly conclusive proof that the scientists in favour of the consensus on anthropogenic climate change far outweigh the sceptics both in numbers and expertise.
	Ruth Valerio	22/06/2010 15:55
Thanks Martin, helpful stuff.
	Dave Evans (Guest)	06/08/2010 14:51
Thanks for this - an interesting article. To address Elanor's post. In the end the question comes down to who you trust in these debates as none of us has access either to the full context or the original data - I certainly haven't travelled to every part of the world checking in the field on every peer reviewed scientific paper in some way linked to this issue. The way I think of it is as follows. If out of every 1000 scientists 980 say that smoking is harmful and in the remaining 20 some are paid by the tabacco industry, some are chain smokers, some are libertarians idealogues(who would automatically be hostile to any findings that suggest political answers are an important part of the picture) and some are all three, should I trust the 20 or the 980?
	Martin Hodson (Guest)	24/08/2010 10:59
Dave makes a helpful comment. Although I have published several papers on palaeoclimatology (past climates), I am not a climatologist myself, but I know a lot of people who are, and they all take the "consensus" position. In fact a new book linking scepticism about smoking, climate change and several other issues has just appeared, "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. They describe how a handful of senior, highly influential scientists in the United States have worked over the past 30 or 40 years to obscure the truth on the issues of Smoking and Cancer, Acid Rain, Ozone destruction and Global Warming. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/08/merchants-of-doubt-oreskes-conway
	Susan Chapman (Guest)	25/10/2010 07:54
In his book "Six Degrees" Mark Lynas summarises the contents of tens of thousands of scientific papers. He lives in Oxford. Page xv "..the vast majority of these forecasts are buried in obscure specialist journals,destined only to be read by other climatologists. Most of these journals are taken by Oxford University's Radcliffe Science Library, where they sit undisturbed for weeks or even years on their dimly lit shelves- just a mile or so down the road from my own house. I realised it was almost as if I had a Delphic Oracle in my back garden or Nostradamus living next door- except that these scientific prophecies were already coming true."
	Ernest (Guest)	01/03/2011 08:57
Even if the reality was that 50% of scientists believed the evidence was there for climate change with the real predicted consequences and 50% were sceptical, I believe we would still have an overwhelming case for urgent action. Who would risk the future of the planet,our children and grandchildren on a toss of a coin where the winner won just an easier (though less fulfilling) life and the loser lost literally everything.

(page 1 2 3)

A Rocha UK, 18-19 Avenue Rd, Southall, Middlesex UB1 3BL | Telephone: 0208 574 5935 | Email: uk@arocha.org