Disparagement of Climate Change Research: A Double Wrong - Ethical Engineering for International Development and Environmental Sustainability - page 171

degradation such as climate change or loss of biodiversity. In this case, it is employed
to establish whether it is worthwhile in fi nancial terms to carry out certain projects.
This implies that the further in the future any damage to the natural world is to be
expected, the lower the fi nancial evaluation of its mitigation. It has been questioned
whether it is valid to assess the benefi ts of an unspoilt environment by extending this
type of analysis to the environmental fi eld. For instance, '… the process of reducing
life, health, and the natural world to monetary values is inherently fl awed'
(Heinzerling and Ackerman 2002 : 1) and '… an abdication of our moral responsi-
bility for future generations' (Heesterman and Heesterman 2013 : 214). The spurious
cost argument has been eagerly exploited by individuals and groups which stand to
profi t from the status quo and in consequence continue to make sustained efforts to
confuse the issue. In addition, the price tag of any future damage due to climate
change tends to be vastly underestimated. Wagner and Weitzman warn about 'The
high cost of doing nothing' ( 2012 ).
Any economists who do not subscribe to the practice of using this method are
met with scorn and derision. The criticisms of the Stern Review of the Economics of
Climate Change commissioned in 2005 by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor
of the Exchequer, are an example. The Review is a study on the economic impacts
of climate change conducted by a team of economists, led by Sir Nicholas Stern,
expert in economics and development. It contains a stark warning: 'The evidence
shows that ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth,' add-
ing that 'the earlier effective action is taken, the less costly it will be' (Stern 2007 :
ii). Attempts to discredit this landmark publication have been made by several
(mainly) economist professionals.

2.2 Scientifi c Argument Versus Anecdotal Assertion

As explained earlier, climate research is based on the fundamental laws of physics.
In the Anglo-Saxon world researchers who work by making use of numerical mod-
els to project climatic conditions of the past into the future tend to be called 'climate
scientists.' They typically verify results with statistical methods and comparison
with observations, while it is often necessary to use a proxy relation. Researchers
who mainly rely on statistical and/or conceptual methods are called climatologists
(Climate Science Program, Iowa State University 2012 ). This distinction is not
made elsewhere. The confusion between the two designations allows those intent on
deprecating the results of the modelling exercises to present themselves as experts
on climate issues, styling themselves 'climatologists'. There is at least one climate
change sceptic, Timothy Ball, who claimed to have been Canada's fi rst PhD in cli-
matology as well as professor in the subject. As he did not receive his PhD until
1983 - and it happened to be in geography - this is somewhat devious (Powell 2011 :
72). Ball is still described as such on the Heartland Institute's website, despite hav-
ing abandoned his 2006 lawsuit against Professor of Environmental Science
D. Johnson and the Calgary Herald (action No. 0601-10387). Ball objected to the