Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
That has not stopped some climate scientists, such as the publicity hungry chief
scientist at the UK Met Office, Dame Julia Slingo, from telling the media that it is likely
that 'climate change' (by which they mean warming) is partly to blame. Usually, however,
the climate scientists take refuge in the weasel words that any topical extreme weather
event, whatever the extreme weather may be, whether the recent UK rainfall or last year's
typhooninthePhilippines,'isconsistentwithwhatwewouldexpectfromclimatechange'.
So what? It is also consistent with the theory that it is a punishment from the Almighty
for our sins (the prevailing explanation of extreme weather events throughout most of
human history). But that does not mean that there is the slightest truth in it. Indeed, it
would be helpful if the climate scientists would tell us what weather pattern would not
be consistent with the current climate orthodoxy. If they cannot do so, then we would do
well to recall the important insight of Karl Popper— that any theory that is incapable of
falsification cannot be considered scientific.
Moreover,asthelatest IPCCreportmakes clear,careful studies haveshownthat,while
extremeweathereventssuchasfloods,droughtsandtropicalstormshavealwaysoccurred,
overall there has been no increase in either their frequency or their severity. That may,
of course, be because there has so far been very little global warming indeed: the fear is
the possible consequences of what is projected to lie ahead of us. And even in climate
science, cause has to precede effect: it is impossible for future warming to affect events in
the present.
Of course, it doesn't seem like that. Partly because of sensitivity to the climate change
doctrine, and partly simply as a result of the explosion of global communications, we are
far more aware of extreme weather events around the world than we used to be. And it
is perfectly true that many more people are affected by extreme weather events than ever
before. But that is simply because of the great growth in world population: there are many
more people around. It is also true, as the insurance companies like to point out, that there
has been a great increase in the damage caused by extreme weather events. But that is
simply because, just as there are more people around, so there is more property around to
be damaged.
The fact remains that the most careful empirical studies show that, so far at least, there
has been no perceptible increase, globally, in either the number or the severity of extreme
weather events. And, as a happy coda, these studies also show that, thanks to scientific and
material progress, there has been a massive reduction, worldwide, in deaths from extreme
weather events.
The heavy cost of decarbonisation
It is relevant to note at this point that there is an important distinction between science and
scientists. I have the greatest respect for science, whose development has transformed the
