Ruth Lea, head of think tank Global Vision, argues for a less ‘dogmatic’, more ‘business-friendly’ approach to the climate while NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt puts the case for no holds-barred action

Lea: “Yes – it is fanaticism, and it’s bad for business…”

It is increasingly difficult to discuss the subject of global warming in an open and questioning manner. The hypothesis that climate change is mainly a function of man-made carbon-dioxide emissions had been adopted as a quasi religion, ruled over by a high priesthood of anti-development environmentalists.

But a hypothesis it is, and contrary to the view that there is a “scientific consensus” on an irrefutable link between climate change and man-made CO₂ emissions, it is not proven fact. In reality, many scientists challenge the view. But even if there were a consensus, then surely there is still be room for questioning minds. The ability to debate and question is the hallmark of an open society.

The current debate on climate change is all too redolent of a closed society, so convinced of its own virtue that to question its firmly held beliefs is to commit treason. Challenges to the current climate-change hypothesis can result in a challenger being abused in a most unwholesome manner. Indeed the hapless person can end up being called a “climate change denier” and likened to a “Holocaust denier” – such is the bullying intemperance of the abuse. To question the hypothesis that climate change is mainly a function of man-made CO₂ emissions is not, of course, to deny “climate change”. Indeed “climate change” has been a feature of planet earth since its birth.

Throughout its 4,500 million years there have been periods when it was noticeably cooler and periods when it was noticeably warmer than it is today. Apparently as recently as the Holocene Maximum (or Holocene Optimum), 4,000 to 8,000 years ago, it was warmer than it is today. Other warm periods included Classical Roman times and the “Medieval Warm Period”. Meanwhile, in the coldest years of the “Little Ice Age” (from the 16th to the 19th centuries) fires were lit on the frozen River Thames. And such was the cooling in the 1970s that scientists were forecasting a “New Ice Age”. Then we were to be frozen to death – now we are to be fried alive. Clearly forces other than anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are major drivers of climate change.

Anti-development environmental campaigners in rich countries conveniently “discovered” and adopted “global warming” some years ago as a potent weapon in their armoury for fighting the forces of economic development. Their capture of the political high ground across the globe with their apocalyptic visions of famine and pestilence driven by global warming, if mankind does not repent of his use of fossil fuels, is truly extraordinary. It is a story that will surely fascinate historians in years to come. But, as the most lurid forecasts of an overheating planet fail to materialise, questions will surely be asked. And we should note that global temperatures have not risen since the turn of the millennium and many parts of the northern hemisphere have suffered a furiously cold winter this year.

The most exacting questions will be asked by those who have carried the largest burden of the costs of “fighting”, “combating” or “controlling” climate change by restricting their CO₂ emissions, raising their cost base and undermining their competitiveness.

Ruth Lea, Head of Global Vision, policy think tank

Schmidt: “No – it’s not dogmatism, it’s science…”

It has become fashionable for some commentators to describe environmentalists and their climate change arguments as having “‘religious fervour” or of “being dogmatic”. But climate change is not a matter of religion, it is an issue of physics. No amount of environmentalist enthusiasm affects the absorption properties of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases nor the rate at which they are accumulating in the atmosphere. No self-satisfied dismissal of the work of thousands of climate scientists because you think them alarmist affects the warming of the oceans, the retreat of mountain glaciers or the long-term decline of Arctic sea ice by one iota.

Why then is this such a common refrain from some conservative think tanks?
Many of them would clearly rather the problem of carbon emissions just went away, instead of it engendering some deep thinking about our energy future or the global tragedy of commons inherent in the global-warming problem. The reason is obvious. By painting advocates for action as religious fundamentalists, they are relieved of having to deal with real issues or engage in any discussion of possible solutions. It is simply intellectual cowardice.

The implication of this argument is that the authors would actually be more convinced of the urgency of the climate-change problem if only environmental organisations were less vocal. It only takes a second’s thought to realise how unlikely that is.

Worse, to these unsubstantive arguments are often added logically incoherent partial readings of climate science that have very little to do with the issue at hand. Should the fact that Genghis Khan killed many thousands of people centuries ago make a difference in deciding the guilt of a suspect in a murder trial today? Of course not. Similarly, the fact that summers 5,000 years ago were warmer than today (due to changes in the planet’s orbital configuration, as it happens) has very little to do with attributions of warming to the increase in greenhouse gases today. Does the fact that today is warmer than yesterday imply that winter has been cancelled?

Again no. Yet this kind of weather anomaly is frequently invoked as if it meant something for climate change. It doesn’t. Variability in weather has not been banished just because there is a long-term climate trend.

Using these kind of non-arguments is not radical out-of-the-box thinking, it is just comforting self-delusion. There are real issues worth discussing about how to reduce emissions most efficiently and think tanks of all stripes have an important role in examining the different options.

However, when people who purport to be public intellectuals essentially abandon discussions of the real issues in favour of thinly disguised anti-intellectualism, the whole world loses. This is not profound debate; it is instead, profoundly disappointing.

Gavin Schmidt
Climate Scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York