Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
anthropogenic warming is occurring and will intensify in future. For years,
climate change sceptics have actively exploited the uncertainty in order to
challenge the consensus view in the public arena. To the extent they've suc-
ceeded, it is arguably because of a recent failure of climate change scientists
to adequately represent uncertainty and to acknowledge publicly, however
critically, any evidence that appears to challenge the IPCC consensus. The
use of the word 'denialist' to characterise many climate change sceptics is
perhaps symptomatic of an over-confidence in recent IPCC communica-
tions about climate change. As Daniel Sarewitz (2011: 7), not a climate
change sceptic, has sagely noted, 'a claim of scientific consensus creates a
public expectation of infallibility that, if undermined, can erode public con-
fidence'. In this case, Sarewitz argues that a better way to represent Earth's
surface processes
might borrow a lesson from the legal system. When the US Supreme Court
issues a split-decision, it presents dissenting opinions with as much force and
rigour as the majority position. Judges vote openly and sign their views, so it is
clear who believes what and why - a transparency [usually] absent from expert
consensus documents.
(ibid.)
In Sarewitz's view, the climate science community would be well advised
to foreground epistemic uncertainty and to give contrary evidence its due.
This would, he believes, strengthen rather than undermine the IPCC mes-
sage that global warming is real and potentially dangerous for many people.
It's worth remembering here that climate change sceptics have frequently
voiced their doubts in the name of 'sound science'. 'Climate-gate' and
'Glacier-gate' all too easily appear to outsiders as instances of 'unsound
science' where censorship and group think are at work.
4
Some climate scientists might worry that foregrounding the error bars and
counter-evidence will further delay meaningful action to mitigate the degree
and effects of global warming. But one can argue the opposite: an honest,
suitably caveated presentation of the future possibilities and probabilities
of environmental change can put the onus on societies worldwide to take
meaningful precautionary action
now
. Uncertainty can as easily
encourage
action when the stakes are high as inhibit it. As part of this presentation, the
climate science community would be entitled to ignore the claims made by
consider seriously any research authored by certified non-climate science
specialists and sceptics like Ross McKitrick and Douglas Keenan when it
research by certified specialists who question the climate change consen-
sus (like American Willie Soon and Australian Garth Paltridge). When or
if this research is found wanting, the reasons would have to be robust
and recorded clearly. Finally, the climate science community would - or
should - welcome systematic individual and team-based research by certified
