Sir, In his item “Down-under doubts”, (Geoscientist, January 2010) Joe McCall has called for a statement of Australian scientists’ “doubts about climate change models” and for “a concise reply from an acknowledged expert”. I do not think this can realistically be achieved, but it is good that this issue has been raised.
As an on-line perusal of The Australian newspaper (quoted by Joe McCall) and related titles will show, climate science has become highly politicised in Australia, to a degree not seen in the UK. A number of scientists in that country (and elsewhere) have entered the fray as aspiring opinion-formers, in some cases appearing to have an agenda to cause confusion about climate change rather than to advance the science or to educate non-scientists. Furthermore, the areas of dispute are very diverse, ranging from predictions of sea-level rise on specific coastlines to whether CO2 is an effective forcing agent for global warming at all. I do not see how a single statement of ‘doubting’ Australian scientists’ views could be obtained, and I very much doubt that a single ‘acknowledged expert’ could be identified who would be widely accepted as authoritative.
As geoscientists, I think we owe it to ourselves, and to those we interact with, to be well-informed about humanity’s ability to influence the global climate. However, I suspect that many non-academic geoscientists like myself, who do not have the time or resources to read deeply into the literature, are at little advantage over journalists and others who seek to interpret climate science to the public and our elected representatives. I wish I could sustain an informed critique of those who criticise the ‘consensus’ predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as being either exaggerated or too conservative, but I cannot (not in detail, anyway; and it’s the details that some of the ‘sceptics’ tend to focus on). I therefore look to the Geological Society and other such bodies to provide independent and authoritative statements on aspects of climate change science within their relevant remits. Unfortunately, the Royal Society’s statement of March 2005 is now out of date and, in view of its copious citation of the 2001 IPCC reports, I suspect it is rather unconvincing for those who take issue with the ‘consensus’ science approach of the IPCC. So what is to be done?
Firstly, I think the Geological Society should remind Fellows of their ethical duties as scientists to avoid making deliberately misleading statements about climate science (or indeed any other type of science), driven by non-scientific (e.g. political) agendas. The Society has, after all, seen it necessary to produce a Position Statement repudiating “Creation Science (attempts by Young Earth Creationists to gain acceptance for what they misrepresent in public as corroborative empirical evidence for their view)” as “a trespass upon the domain of science”. I do not think it is stretching a point to see the tactics of some seemingly scientific deniers of anthropogenic climate change as being akin to (albeit more sophisticated than) those of ‘creation scientists’.
Secondly, the Society should not get embroiled in controversy about climate modelling, but should state that predictive modelling of climate change is a necessary endeavour, albeit one which pushes beyond the boundaries of ‘normal’ science. The same can be said of other endeavours such as long-term post-closure performance assessment modelling for deep geological repositories for radioactive waste. The Society could also usefully state that in such endeavours, ‘consensus’ elicitation approaches as used by the IPCC are needed in order to provide outputs that are useful to policy/decision-makers.
Thirdly, the Society should produce independent and authoritative statements on what is and is not known about key topics which are clearly geological in nature and are the subject of dispute in the context of climate change. These statements should be intelligible to non-specialists, including scientifically literate journalists, but also well supported by references to the scientific literature. To demonstrate independence, such statements should be obtained from and agreed by as broad as possible a spectrum of expert scientists, who should be drawn mainly from outside the climate change research ‘community’ in general and the IPCC in particular, and preferably including scientists employed or funded by the fossil fuel industries. Of course, if those drawing up the statements were to agree that the IPCC 4th Assessment Working Group 1 report presents an accurate summary on a specific key topic, this should be stated.