Current affairs - climate change

Foreword. Although I mainly write my posts for myself (doing so helps me get my thoughts on any particular topic in order) I understand that others may also come across this blog. For them I would advise that the following post is long, rambling and at times it might also seem contradictory. Be warned! The reason for this is that, like my earlier post about Scottish independence, I am attempting to bring together all my thoughts over many years and develop them to a current position. Any future posts on this subject should therefore be short and to the point (hopefully).

My current position. Firstly, I need to clarify that I am not a Climate Change skeptic in the usual sense. I fully accept that the climate is changing and that the global temperature is increasing. I am less convinced, however, that human activity is the sole cause - although I do accept it is most likely a major factor and maybe the sole factor. I am not, however, convinced that it is the sole factor and I am not convinced that the outcome will be as severe and destructive as the worst predictions made - although they might be.

I do, however, believe that we (everyone) have to respond as if those worst predictions were going to be the result of failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If those worst predictions are accurate then we need to respond to that danger to prevent the worst happening. I fear we are not responding to the extent that we need to - and one of the reasons for this is the variable predictions made about both the causes and the outcome. I fear that a majority, and governments, doubt much of what science is saying because of those inconsistencies. It is not possible, after all and given those inconsistencies, that all scientists are correct. Only one outcome can be correct (assuming we make no changes) and that means that all the rest are wrong to some degree - and that, I fear, leads to the thought “well, if most are wrong then what’s to say that it’s not those making the most serious predictions that are wrong and we might destroy our economy if we take steps that are not needed?”. The more people who might think that to be the case then the less we will do to deal with the problem.

At this point I also need to make clear that I am coming from a skeptical position. I remember, during the eighties, newspaper articles warning that the Earth was heading for another ice age - then, within just a couple of years, we were warned that the problem was global warming. I was suspicious of this as this change happened immediately after the collapse of the USSR. Being a cynic I felt that this was too convenient. It struck me that this was just a new way for governments to keep their populations concerned about global warming (instead of nuclear war) such that they would fail to scrutinise what their governments were doing in other ways - and then there were the growing inconsistencies about what the scientific community was saying. I only started to change mind over recent years as the number of severe weather events (floods and bush fires, for example) became more and more frequent. Those increased, severe weather events, did not, of course, prove that human activity was the problem - they didn’t even prove that global warming was the problem - but they certainly pointed to an increasing problem which demanded that action was needed and that human activity, as the likely main cause, needed to be taken seriously.
That’s my basic position - but one might ask: what inconsistencies am I talking about?
The inconsistencies. The first inconsistency is between the deniers and the proponents (which is what I’ll call those who believe in global warming caused, at least to some extent, by human activity). Even within the deniers group there are differences of opinion. Some (still) seem to deny that there is any global warming while others accept there is but that it’s down to natural factors which we have no control over or power to change. There are others, like the late David Bellamy, who are unconvinced by the science employed by the proponents. Mr Bellamy was once in the proponent corner and seen as a champion of the cause - but, after taking a closer look at the science, he decided the science being employed was flawed. I don’t know if Mr Bellamy changed his mind again before he died - but there are others who, like he became, are unconvinced that sound science is being employed.
Then we have the proponents who fall into many camps (which is the main cause of my skepticism). Firstly, they have come up with many differing causes for global warming. First it was internal combustion vehicles (of all sorts), then it was airplane flights, then it was deforestation, then it was coal fired power stations - and so on. The latest I’ve read is that’s down to concrete manufacturing and also methane escaping from mine shafts. Then we have the varying, projected outcomes. First it was sea level rise of, say, a meter by 2100  then it was two meters by 2050 (I can’t remember the exact levels but I do remember the time period roughly halving while the extent of the predicted sea level rise roughly doubled). There were/are also differences predicted with regards to how much of a temperature increase we were likely to experience. There are nearly as many causes suggested, and outcomes predicted, as there are scientists alive and working - and that, for me, does not provided the confidence that will be needed to convince people, and governments, that any of them actually know what they are talking about. Note that I accept that most governments, except for the likes of the current right wing administrations in the US and Brazil, do generally accept there is a problem but I also feel that the current inconsistencies prevent them from taking the far reaching and very expensive policy changes that could well be needed. This is especially true in (what we call) democracies as the governments in such countries need the general population to accept and understand the potential dangers - and if the inconsistencies prevent the populations being convinced then their governments will feel unable to take all necessary steps to fully combat the danger. At the same time I feel it is governments, not individuals, who need to take the lead in this. To be fair, I have read some articles in recent years in which a proponent has indicated that the problem is being caused by a combination of all the previously mentioned causes (plus maybe some not yet accounted for) and not just one in particular. This strikes me as most likely - but the previous pointing at one particular cause or another has not helped - and this highlighting of a particular cause still seems common with many of the proponents, and this only fuels the confusion with further inconsistencies. That, maybe, is not the intention but I fear that doing this helps promote doubt - and that, I fear, restricts a clear sight of how best to proceed.
The basis of my doubts. At this point I must admit to the fact that I don’t believe a word any scientist says - just because they are a scientist! I do believe that science eventually gets things right, or at least adopts a path which will eventually lead to getting things right, but that is no guarantee that what any individual scientist says is correct. Scientists are human beings and subject to making mistakes - and some are also subject to making false claims to bolster their belief, cause or financial security. An example. A friend of mine once took up a position as deputy director of research at a Scottish educational establishment. At first all seemed fine - but it gradually became clear to me that tensions between my friend and her boss had arisen. Eventually my friend got sight of an email her boss had written to the finance director (I don’t know how). In this email my friend’s boss complained to the finance director that she had made the mistake of hiring a deputy who was not willing to change her data or conclusions, or both, such that more funding could be won for further research. This was an eye opener for me and was what led me to doubt what any scientist claimed to be true. That is not to say that I believe all scientists, or even more than a few, are willing to manipulate their research findings in such a way - but the above story has led me to have doubts about any scientific claims as my first thoughts are now always “what gains could there be for a scientist making such a claim outside of pure scientific advancement?”. That is not to say that there are any gains apart from scientific advancement - but, since learning about the above story concerning my friend, I am left considering the possibility that there might be. What could these alternative gains be? Well, firstly, just being a team player and not bucking the trend or the accepted consensus. Then there is the possibility of financial gain. It seems clear to me that a number of the deniers are willing to back that view for financial gain from the fossil fuel industry - so that, for me, proves that any scientist might be willing to say whatever is needed if there is a financial gain in doing so.
What sort of a financial gain could there be for the proponents, might be asked? Well, consider that due to the vastly improved education, over the past hundred years or so, the World is now producing a greatly increased number of scientists - and they all need employment. Research and development facilities and laboratories are all over the place (either as stand alone institutions or as departments within companies and governments). They all need research and development programs - and that requires funding. Many proponents ask why scientists should lie or exaggerate - the above explains why this MIGHT be the case. If initial research indicates that there is nothing further to research then funding in that topic will dry up. If, on the other hand, initial research indicates something that needs further research then further funding will, hopefully, be forthcoming - and the more serious the initial findings, or subsequent research, then even more funding might become available for even more research. Some might say that scientists would not stoop to such levels - but the story about my friend indicates that some, at least, do - and at least some of the deniers also seem willing to say whatever is required of them for financial reward. So, given that situation, I am left doubting anything a scientist says - until the evidence clearly shows what the truth of the matter is. For me, in this subject, the truth of the matter clearly is that the global temperature is rising - but, beyond that, I am left in doubt about what is causing this and how serious the result will be. I suspect human activity is a factor and maybe a major factor or even the sole factor. I have doubts, however, about how how bad the outcome will be if the global temperature continues to rise as it has been recently. I have these doubts because of the inconsistency of scientific predictions and because I have doubts about the honesty of any scientist. That is not to say I disbelieve what any scientist says or claims - it’s just that I doubt what they say until there is sufficient evidence to totally convince me.
How, apart from doctoring data and conclusions, might scientists bend the truth to suit their personal point of view? Well (and I might be wrong here), I figure that climate models are similar to complex spreadsheets with variables being plugged in as required. The more variables then the more accurate those models are likely to be - but such models will produce a range of results depending upon the values of the variables used. It is therefore easy for deniers to refer only to their ‘best case’ outcomes while proponents point only to their ‘worst case’ outcomes - with both sides ignoring the outcomes which don’t match what they want to see. There is also the possible bending of the results of others. Not so long ago a proponent researched how much methane was stored in the Siberian tundra - and how that would affect global warming if it all escaped into the atmosphere. Another proponent jumped on this as proof of the seriousness of our current emergency. The first scientist, however, then pointed out that she had not said that all of the Siberian methane would escape - just how much was stored there and what the outcome would be if it did escape (and she went on to say that nothing like all that methane would escape). Now, did the second scientist genuinely and honestly misunderstand what the first scientist was saying - or did he deliberately misinterpret the first scientist’s finding to suit his agenda? Is it even possible that the above story was concocted by the denier side of the argument to create doubt about the honesty and integrity of the proponents side of the argument? Fake news is so rife these days that not only do I doubts what scientists say but I also doubt just about everything I read (especially online).
Another example of how conflicting articles result in confusion and doubt. We have long been told that deforestation is a major cause of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because trees soak up CO2 - and when we cut them down we reduce the ability for CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere (and the CO2 in the harvested trees also escapes back into the atmosphere). In recent years the president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, has been vilified for not just resuming deforestation of the Amazon basin but for vastly increasing it. However, in a recent article I read that a NASA satellite had taken photographs which indicated we currently have more tree cover on Earth than we had only a few decades ago. Most of this, the article said, was down to China planting vast amounts of trees. A few weeks after this I read another article in which the authors, once again, claimed that deforestation was a major reason for increased atmospheric CO2. Which is it? Is the Earth losing more trees than it’s growing or do we now have more tree cover than we’ve had for decades? It can’t be both. Shortly after that last article I read another that claimed to show, again from satellite photographs, that while Brazil had indeed increased it’s rate of deforestation that this was not at the vastly increased rate often claimed. Is that an actual fact - or a report published to counter the attacks on Bolsonaro?
It is fair to state that there are many debates and ongoing arguments in the scientific world - especially in fields that are still under investigation and lacking clear knowledge. For example, some cosmologists still argue that there was no Big Bang and that the Universe is cyclical. There is still debate about how fast the universe is expanding. There is still debate about what dark matter is - and what the cause of dark energy is - but those debates do not seem to be as vicious and vitriolic as the climate change debate. Theories are put forward and then argued against by others - but without the vicious attacks that are rife in the climate change debate.There does, however, appear to be an argument raging in the astrophysicist’s world which has become just as vitriolic as the climate change one - because, I think, this argument also has ramifications to climate change. The astrophysicists do seem to agree that the Sun is entering a three cycle period of low, average activity (after five cycles of high, average activity). There are those who believe the coming three cycles of low activity (roughly thirty three years) will result in a noticeable (but not huge) reduction in the global temperature while there are others who say there will be no affect at all on the global temperature - and then there are a range of predictions between both extremes. This has resulted in many proponents (of climate change) joining in that debate and usually taking the side of those claiming this low activity will have no effect on the global temperature. Why would those proponents take such a view, in a field of study they know little about, unless they had a vested interest in the global temperature increasing? Surely it would be more reasonable for them to say that they hoped three cycles of low solar activity would help but that this was unclear and we had to proceed as if this would have no effect at all? Doing so, of course, would be to accept that some degree of natural phenomenon was at play (as, if three low activity cycles reduces the increase in global temperature, then the preceding five high activity cycles might have been a factor in the recent increase). I suspect the minds of many proponents are closed to this possibility - and I would say that this could indicate bad science, as investigating anything with a closed mind could well produce false results and predictions.
Another argument made by the proponents is that the scientific consensus supports their view. This also does not wash with me. It is only about one hundred years ago that the scientific consensus was that Eugenics was the way forward - and even governments were passing laws based on it’s conclusions. Later research showed Eugenics to be wrong and policies were generally reversed. An exception to this was in Nazi Germany - and we know what that led to. There are many other examples throughout history where individual scientists got it wrong but their standing at the time led other scientists to agree with them. Using ‘scientific consensus’ as an argument is, for me, no argument at all.
There is also another factor in the ‘consensus’ argument to consider. It is not just the climate scientists that are winning funding for research but also scientists working on ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example; motor vehicles, and even airplanes, running on battery or hydrogen; carbon capture and storage so we can continue to burn coal, oil and gas; developing plastics that can easily be recycled (this reducing the amount of oil required to make new plastics); developing alternative ways to make concrete with reduced CO2 production, development of wind, wave, tidal, solar and nuclear power sources; developing alternative cattle feeds to reduce the methane output from their farting. The list of research fields into all of these and others is extensive. I am not saying that this is wasted research being undertaken only to bring in funding as even if climate change was eventually shown to be 100% caused by natural phenomenon (which I very much doubt) then all of the above could well, if successful, be greatly beneficial to humanity (not to mention all life on Earth) but it does indicate why scientists in many fields might be ‘happy’ about the the climate change emergency as they, too, are beneficiaries of the funding now being poured into the research they are doing. I am, therefore, not too surprised that scientists, in general, are ‘happy’ to support the findings of their colleges working on purely climate research (add to the consensus, that is) - even when they know nothing about the field themselves.

It is, of course, impossible to conclude this post without mention of Greta Thunberg. Her crusade has been very vital and she must be praised, without stint, for it. She has brought home, with emotion, the dangers we face to a far greater extent than anything the IPCC has said. As mentioned above, governments wanting to take serious action have their hands tied, to some extent, if their citizens are not on board - and Greta’s crusade has helped, hopefully, in changing the minds of at least some of those needing more persuading that serious action is needed - and needed now (just in case the ‘worst case’ scenarios are the correct ones). At the same time she and her followers are a bit naive in (perhaps) thinking that extensive changes can be made at the drop of a hat. Trying to do that could result in more suffering and death than unrestricted climate change might cause. We cannot just turn off the coal power stations, for example, and stop international flights. If we did then humanity would be returned to the conditions of the middle ages - huddling in cold homes without heating to keep warm and cook our food (and burning coal and wood at home would, I understand, result in greater amounts of CO2 being released, anyway) - and stopping international flights would destroy our current food chains and plunge us into a recession (not to mention starvation for many) with a huge increase in unemployment as most employed in this industry would lose their jobs. On top of that, huge numbers in the tourist industry, in many countries, would also lose their incomes - and that would only be the result of changing the above two factors in how we live today. People and countries would, of course, gradually find new ways of doing things and surviving - but the hardship and death that would occur, before those changes took place, would be extreme. What we need to do is work harder and faster at changing our technology; replacing coal powered electricity stations with alternatives or doing more to capture CO2. We need to work harder and faster at replacing the internal combustion engine with alternatives - and replacing lots of other things that produce CO2 and methane with alternatives. All of those changes can be achieved but doing so will take time and still result in changing how we live - and doing so will require humans throughout the planet to be convinced about the need for those changes. I figure Greta and her supporters will have helped many see that those changes are urgent - but we must achieve this without the cure being worse than what unchecked global warming could result in.

Summary: while having many doubts about the causes of global warming, and what the extent of the destruction, suffering and deaths might be, I have no doubts about what humanity must do. I believe we must assume that humanity is the sole, or major, cause of the problem and we must assume the most serious predictions are the most likely ones - and as a result we must take whatever steps are needed to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible. If we are the cause, or main cause, of the problem then we have to assume the worst because if we don’t, and don’t act now, then doing so in a few years time might well be too late to avoid greater catastrophe. There is one way to remove the chance of dying at Russian roulette - remove the bullet from the gun. There is only one way to reduce the potential for death and destruction via global warming - and that is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by as much as we can. We cannot totally remove the danger as some of the problem, at least, might be down to natural phenomenon - but we cannot rely on that so we must take what action we can in vastly reducing emissions in the hope that that will be sufficient. 
It is my hope that the coming three cycles of minimum solar activity will, at least, slow the rate of global warming and that this will give us some extra time to develop alternative methods of transport and heating such that by the time the solar minimum is over our greenhouse gas emissions have been seriously reduced. We now, however, have another problem which could well restrict our ability to develop new technologies: the coronavirus sweeping the planet as I write this. The vast sums of money many countries are pouring into their economies to support their populations must surely reduce the funds available over the coming years to develop those alternatives. Sure, the recession resulting from the pandemic might well reduce our greenhouse gas emissions - but only for a while. Once the pandemic is past then I suspect industry will once again pick-up, pretty quickly, from where it left off - but it could take a lot longer for countries to rebuild their reserves and that could greatly restrict the funds available for the research and development into new technologies needed to combat climate change. That is not a positive outlook - so I hope I am wrong.