The Phony Attack on Climate Science
Jeffrey D. Sachs
NEW YORK – In the weeks before and after the Copenhagen climate change conference last December, the science of climate change came under harsh attack by critics who contend that climate scientists have deliberately suppressed evidence – and that the science itself is severely flawed. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global group of experts charged with assessing the state of climate science, has been accused of bias.
The global public is disconcerted by these attacks. If experts cannot agree that there is a climate crisis, why should governments spend billions of dollars to address it?
The fact is that the critics – who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks – are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.
Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change deniers. Merchants of Doubt , a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their misbehavior. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.
Today’s campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organizations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulfur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing “acid rain.” Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.
Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting mainly in the 1980’s, this same group took on the battle against climate change.
What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts. The truth is that there is big money backing the climate-change deniers, whether it is companies that don’t want to pay the extra costs of regulation, or free-market ideologues opposed to any government controls.
The latest round of attacks involves two episodes. The first was the hacking of a climate-change research center in England. The e-mails that were stolen suggested a lack of forthrightness in the presentation of some climate data. Whatever the details of this specific case, the studies in question represent a tiny fraction of the overwhelming scientific evidence that points to the reality and urgency of man-made climate change.
The second issue was a blatant error concerning glaciers that appeared in a major IPCC report. Here it should be understood that the IPCC issues thousands of pages of text. There are, no doubt, errors in those pages. But errors in the midst of a vast and complex report by the IPCC point to the inevitability of human shortcomings, not to any fundamental flaws in climate science.
When the e-mails and the IPCC error were brought to light, editorial writers at The Wall Street Journal launched a vicious campaign describing climate science as a hoax and a conspiracy. They claimed that scientists were fabricating evidence in order to obtain government research grants – a ludicrous accusation, I thought at the time, given that the scientists under attack have devoted their lives to finding the truth, and have certainly not become rich relative to their peers in finance and business.
But then I recalled that this line of attack – charging a scientific conspiracy to drum up “business” for science – was almost identical to that used by The Wall Street Journal and others in the past, when they fought controls on tobacco, acid rain, ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, and other dangerous pollutants. In other words, their arguments were systematic and contrived, not at all original to the circumstances.
We are witnessing a predictable process by ideologues and right-wing think tanks and publications to discredit the scientific process. Their arguments have been repeatedly disproved for 30 years – time after time – but their aggressive methods of public propaganda succeed in causing delay and confusion.
Climate change science is a wondrous intellectual activity. Great scientific minds have learned over the course of many decades to “read” the Earth’s history, in order to understand how the climate system works. They have deployed brilliant physics, biology, and instrumentation (such as satellites reading detailed features of the Earth’s systems) in order to advance our understanding.
And the message is clear: large-scale use of oil, coal, and gas is threatening the biology and chemistry of the planet. We are fueling dangerous changes in Earth’s climate and ocean chemistry, giving rise to extreme storms, droughts, and other hazards that will damage the food supply and the quality of life of the planet.
The IPCC and the climate scientists are telling us a crucial message. We need urgently to transform our energy, transport, food, industrial, and construction systems to reduce the dangerous human impact on the climate. It is our responsibility to listen, to understand the message, and then to act.
Jeffrey D. Sachs is Professor of Economics and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.
www.project-syndicate.org
For a podcast of this commentary in English, please use this link: http://media.blubrry.com/ps/media.libsyn.com/media/ps/sachs163.mp3
You might also like to read more from Jeffrey D. Sachs or return to our home page.
|
|
jeffwink 05:18 19 Feb 10
Is the "group" you identify a group because they have all attacked various scientific ideas, or are are they actually a group.
"Today’s campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organizations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer."
What does "many cases" mean?
You suggest a conspiracy against science, don't you need to support that premise with facts rather than just conclusory statements? If you don't, is your attack on the "critics" the same as their attack on science?
That said, I don't disagree with your premise. However, I want to believe it because its true, not just because I want to believe it.
njweatherdon 05:46 21 Feb 10
I have often heard this claim that oil companies are funding people to sow seeds of doubt on climate science.
I'm quite prepared to suspect that it's true, but much like jeffwink, I'd like to know the facts of the matter rather than supposing that things are true without any evidence.
PeterEverett 05:38 22 Feb 10
As an oncologist and scientist, I find it patently offensive for Mr. Sachs to smear those who raise legitimate questions about man-made CO2's influence on climate with comparisons to those who denied the link between tobacco smoke and lung cancer. This is not a scientific, or even a rational argument.
Important errors are found in the data used to support the existence of a significant climate effect from anthropogenic CO2, and the modeled consequences. Lapses in professional integrity by those in climate science have been discovered. New observations are continually proving false the projections of models. Mr. Sachs addresses none of this head-on, preferring to argue ad hominem. That Mr. Sachs repeats the discredited "extreme storms" shibboleth is laughable.
As someone who cares about the natural environment, I am far more concerned that the fraudulent campaign against CO2 is detracting from legitimate pollution concerns, like groundwater chemicals, airborne sulfates & polyaromatic hydrocarbons. There are many good reasons to use fossil fuels wisely, cleanly, and efficiently, but CO2 is not among them. Continued drumbeating will only undermine legitimate environmental science.
Mr. Sachs has written a sleazy polemic in place of a reasoned argument. He should know better.
kwacka 12:41 23 Feb 10
This is not an attack on those that are skeptical about global climate change; but an attack on those that attempt to discredit the overwhelming scientific consensus that man is adversely affecting the planets climate; an attack on those that attempt to discredit the message by discrediting the messengers (they have no ammunition to attack the message).
If you want more information on the payers/puppets see http://www.exxonsecrets.org
pkeenan 04:46 23 Feb 10
Given the degree of legitimate concern on this issue and the fact that the science is clearly not settled in favour of either side, it's disappointing that a professor in any field would write such an adolescent piece. The article essentially ignores the central issue in favour of a few cheap shots at the motivation of those concerned.
chpaquette 05:12 23 Feb 10
Please identify the "group" you refer to....
FFTMMFA 03:49 02 Mar 10
The science is pretty well settled that man's actions are having a certain, and negative, effect on the climate. How is this still in debate? Read Sachs' latest book, Commonwealth, for more of the facts you're looking for (or trying to avoid, as the case may be...)
Elliot 04:22 11 Jun 10
CO2 follows Climate Change, it does not cause climate change. Also, CO2 is a nutrient not a pollutant.
Now lets put man made CO2 into perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI
If you still believe man made CO2 causes climate change then maybe this will help.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647&hl=en#
SeoKungFu 02:21 19 Feb 10
Bill Gates on TED talks: "If I had to pick one wish, I'd pick 0 emissions of CO2" http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html