Disparagement of Climate Change Research: A Double Wrong - Ethical Engineering for International Development and Environmental Sustainability - page 173

does a review by other economists such as Tol and Yohe ( 2006 : 234), using the
expression 'substandard' in World Economics , a business journal. The epithet
'preposterous' is due to Tol, commenting on the sentence: 'climate change will cause
economic disruption now and forever' ( 2006 : 977). Then, there is the importance
Stern paid to agriculture: 'Most of the world's economic activity today takes place
indoors: generally speaking, the outputs of both manufacturing and services are
unaffected by outdoor conditions': … and 'the share of these vulnerable sectors can
be expected to decline to a relatively low level' (Byatt et al. 2006 : 39). One wonders
what these 'indoor' workers are going to eat, as the authors do not appear to rate
future 'food security' as of any signifi cance. Despite the many attacks, the Stern
Review remains 'the prominent report' regarding 'the cost of solving and not solving
climate change' (Berners-Lee and Clark 2013 : 113).
Another common objection is that people are not convinced that 'the science is
settled' (Oreskes and Conway 2010 : 169), for example, David Davies (MP): 'It is
not proven' ( Hansard , 10 Sep 2013: Column 237WH). The sceptics then add that
warnings such as a sentence in the Stern Review - '… major, irreversible changes to
the Earth system … [which] may take us past irreversible tipping points' (Stern
2007: 331) - are unduly alarmist (Lawson 2009 : 47).
A third claim is that 'there is no consensus among scientists' (Lindzen 2009 ).
Several contrarians - the preferred term in the USA - subscribe to the 'Leave it to
the Market' mantra, a standpoint also endorsed by several UK economists and poli-
ticians (Lack 2013 : 23, 35, 50).

2.3.2 Leaving the Door Open to Criticism

Unfortunately, the fact that few climate scientists are consummate communicators
has made it possible for the silver tongue of those favouring laissez faire and self-
interest to dominate the discussion. On occasion, unfortunate and careless use of
language has been less than helpful. An example is the use of the term 'global
warming', which suggests a pleasantly balmy climate affecting different regions
equally instead of tending towards extremes with temperature anomalies on the
increase.
This lack of precision in terminology allows detractors from the science to ignore
the damage to the ecosystem caused by all the associated processes. For instance,
Lord Lawson consistently chooses to adhere to the term 'global warming' instead of
'climate change', hammering the point home as it were by repetition: “I deliberately
use the term 'global warming, rather than the attractively alliterative weasel words,
'climate change', throughout” (Lawson 2009 : 2), “the latest scare - global warm-
ing” (Ibid: 3), followed by the repeated use of 'gentle', 'modest' or 'slight' warming
(Ibid: 27, 28, 51). The recurring phrase leaves the reader in no doubt that he thinks
climate change is nothing to worry about. He also uses the expression: 'a modest
degree of recorded global warming during the twentieth century', subsequently dis-
avowed with the words 'there has been no further recorded global warming at all for
the past 15 years ….'