Approximately 6000 words, reading time, about 40 minutes
I think I can credit my chemistry teacher, circa 1972, for alerting me to the publication of The Limits to Growth. In stark terms this publication, commissioned by the Club of Rome, outlined the ways in which the capitalist system was rapidly consuming, to the point of imminent exhaustion, resources vital to the sustenance of our modern lifestyle. On the basis of their most conservative “static growth scenario”, the report predicted that, for example, lead and petroleum would be exhausted in 26 and 31 years respectively.[1] Clearly, the computer modelling used for generating these figures was in an early stage of development, so the obvious error in these predictions may be excused, though the somewhat alarmist character of the publication undoubtedly contributed to its success, with sales in 30 languages of 30 million copies.
Whatever the failings of its predictions may have been, the essential message of The Limits to Growth, that the earth is a finite resource, made a huge impact generally and certainly influenced my own thinking.
Doubtless my knowledge of The Limits to Growth made me susceptible to concerns around our environment, and I was not slow to pick up on the risks associated with our changing climate and the role that CO2 is taking in global warming. Indeed, I would say that I have never felt it necessary to interrogate the emerging consensus amongst climate scientists, that in order to avoid dangerous overheating, we must rapidly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Quite recently, however, I have recognised weaknesses in my understanding of the anthropogenic paradigm and have made some attempt to correct this whilst also looking at other explanations for why the world is warming and other proposals for how we could or should respond.
Whilst I continue to think there are many benefits arising from the clean technologies being developed to mitigate anthropogenic climate change, and whilst I continue to have wider concerns about the impact which industrial processes and human activity is having on the environment, my sense is that predictions of imminent catastrophe deserve close scrutiny and, more importantly, may not be the best basis on which to face the challenges which the coming century will undoubtedly bring.
“Thirty-three bullet points …”
Not long ago, a friend sent me a paper by geologist, Roger Higgs, interested in my opinion of its content. It was titled 33 bullet points prove global warming by the Sun, not CO2: by a GEOLOGIST for a change.”
The title alone would probably, in normal circumstances, have been sufficient reason for me to give this document a wide berth, but as it happens, many years ago, I had a very slight acquaintance with Dr Higgs, so I was intrigued. I found the arguments difficult to follow. Perhaps another geologist, or a climate scientist would be better able to see the sense in his many striking assertions, but I struggled. Still, I couldn’t miss the basic challenge that Dr Higgs makes to the view, accepted by most climate scientists, that global warming is anthropogenic, a result of human activity. Neither could I miss his fury with regard to how the Independent Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) is promoting this view of the matter. For example, Dr Higgs says:
The IPCC … has no geologists among the hundreds of authors of its last major report (2013-14) … Geologists know that throughout this time Earth has constantly warmed or cooled (never static). Thus ‘climate change’ is nothing new; it is perfectly usual. During the last 11,650 years, our current ‘Holocene’ interglacial epoch, climate change has repeatedly been fast enough to cause collapse of civilisations. [2]
Dr Higgs is also upset by the frequent use of the term “Global-warming denier” and says:
No informed person ‘denies’ global warming: it has been measured … [and global warming denier] is a deceitful term, with intentionally despicable connotations, for doubters and deniers of ‘Anthropogenic [man-made] Global Warming’ (AGW)”
Dr Higgs goes on to say that the “[c]laimed ‘97% consensus among scientists’ that AGW exists is a deception. It refers in fact to polls of recent publications by only ‘climate scientists’.” Well, who knows if this is true: not me certainly.
Still, I ploughed on until my attention was captured by reference to the “elegant and simple ‘Svensmark Theory” which the IPCC “dismisses”. Thus prompted, I found my way to a paper by Henrik Svensmark, titled: FORCE MAJEURE — The Sun’s Role in Climate Change.[3]
It’s fair to say that reading this paper again presented me with a few challenges; nevertheless, I felt as though I had entered a realm of relative calm and clarity. In summary, Henrik Svensmark, a professor of physics at the Danish National Space Institute in Copenhagen, argues that:
Many scientific studies have shown that changes in solar activity have impacted climate over the whole Holocene period (approximately the last 10,000 years). A well-known example is the existence of high solar activity during the Medieval Warm Period, around the year 1000 AD, and the subsequent low levels of solar activity during the cold period, now called The Little Ice Age (1300–1850 AD) .[3]
Professor Svensmark goes on to make clear that the variations in solar radiance alone are not sufficient to explain global warming, and that his research is concerned with determining the mechanism which can explain his conviction that the correlation he observes between solar activity and historic warming and cooling of the planet is an important determinant of current planetary warming. He does not, by the way, argue with the warming impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere but believes that climate is, in all likelihood, much more sensitive to the variations in cloud formation, which he suggests are related to variations in solar emissions, and in particular sun spots. Well, I hope I have summarised his position adequately, but would suggest that anyone interested in this theory might start by viewing an interview with Professor Svensmark and his son Jacob, titled The Connection between Cosmic Rays, Clouds and Climate conducted in 2018 by GWPF TV, of which more anon.[4]
This theory is clearly an outlier, and indeed I have today come across a long list of Papers on the non-significant role of cosmic rays in climate [5] but nevertheless, my interest was piqued and pushed me towards the realisation that I didn’t really understand the supposed link between CO2 and global warming, in particular, why climate should be so sensitive to the presence of CO2.
Why just CO2?
Many of us are familiar with the fact that CO2 in our atmosphere has increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1850 (considered to be pre-industrial) to the current level of 415ppm[6] This period of increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere correlates with our warming climate. It is reasonable to ask, why is climate so sensitive to the presence of CO2? Might there not be other factors at work?
When I start to think about this, I have a number of points on which, as a naive observer, I might wish to inform myself a little better. 415ppm is approximately 0.04% of our global atmosphere, which doesn’t exactly seem like a blanket that would keep anything warm. But then of course we are concerned with global average temperatures, where changes of fractions of a degree C are important. Still, let me push this enquiry a little further by asking what percentage of the volume of our atmosphere is taken up by CO2?
Our atmosphere after all is mostly empty space, with, according to one estimate, only 1.5% being occupied by gaseous molecules, of which, remember, only 415 molecules per million are carbon dioxide. That empty space between molecules in the gaseous state is why we can compress gases into a much smaller space, such as a cylinder containing liquid nitrogen or oxygen. And so I feel compelled to ask: why is climate so sensitive to the presence of CO2?
In fact, the term “greenhouse gas” is somewhat misleading, for the warming effect of a greenhouse gas is quite unlike the warming of a horticultural greenhouse, where the glass skin limits convection by obstructing the dispersal of warm air which would otherwise immediately be replaced by cooler air, were the glass not in place. Greenhouse gases, it seems, absorb infrared energy radiating outwards from the earth whereas the same energy passes directly through the non-greenhouse gases, unimpeded and on into space. There’s more however: once CO2 has absorbed radiant energy, it re-radiates it, some of it back towards the earth, causing warming, but some of it, inevitably, outwards, towards space, resulting in the loss of this energy from the atmosphere.[7]
The principal evidence that I have so far encountered that CO2 is having this effect, is the correlational link between levels of CO2 in our atmosphere and rising global temperatures since 1850.
Any climate scientist, struggling to explain why the planet is warming in the current era, who had noticed the correlation between increasing temperatures and increasing CO2 from 1850 to the present, would have immediately believed that they had cracked the problem, like Newton and the apple, or Archimedes in his bath. It is a stunning observation, of course made all the more compelling by the fact that CO2, is a gas which is not transparent to the passage of the infrared which the earth radiates. They would have wasted no time in starting to build those models, projecting into the future expected rates of increase in CO2, and would have started to grapple with the complexities of how this would impact global temperatures in the decades to come.
But what are the complexities such a model must account for? Here, in my role as amateur science sleuth, I offer some suggestions.
- We know the proportion of CO2 in our atmosphere, relative to other gases, principally oxygen and nitrogen, but what is the total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere?
- Are the proportions of CO2 relative to other gases which make up the atmosphere, uniform or does it vary in its distribution?
- What are the densities of CO2 in the different layers of the atmosphere?
- What proportion of the energy radiating outwards from the planet encounters a CO2 molecule and is absorbed by it?
- What percentage of the energy captured by atmospheric CO2 is then re-radiated back towards earth, and what percentage is re-radiated out into space?
I would assume, by the way, that so far as this latter quantity is concerned, there will be a significant difference in the energy lost to space in the upper atmosphere, where the re-radiated energy will be more likely to miss the earth and pass into space. I am sure there are other complexities, so can well imagine that those climate scientists who first started to model the changes which they foresaw, would probably have been rather irritated by someone from another scientific discipline who was so bold as to suggest other explanations for the warming of our planet, based on other sets of correlational data.
The implications of warming and the need to plan for it are so obvious and so important, these dissident voices, quite possibly, in the early days, promoted by vested interests, such as the oil industry, would have seemed an infuriating distraction, intended simply to discredit CO2 as an explanation for warming, rather than to offer a serious alternative. However, exactly because the matter is of the highest importance, because the stakes are so high, those dissident voices should not simply be ignored; where credible theory or evidence is being offered, independent research and review should be supported.
Dr Higgs, himself such an independent researcher, says: “simultaneous warming and acceleration in CO2 since 1850 … [is a] coincidence”. Professor Svensmark, whose independence I do not question, offers an alternative, and on first glance, impressive correlation, which appears to explain global warming and cooling over a longer historical period. Those in favour of the CO2 hypothesis do offer arguments to explain warming and cooling in previous eras, using I believe similar proxy measures of global temperature derived from ice cores, coral reefs and tree rings. However, they also question the significance of the Medieval Warm Period, the existence of which, they suggest, is to some extent based on unreliable anecdote, with the solar explanation of warming buttressed by inaccurate interpretation of data which presents the warm period as a global rather than a regional phenomenon:[8][9]: if however, as Professor Svensmark has suggested, there is a correlation between solar activity and these events, this remains a striking observation, and worthy of further attention: but, rather than entering into the finer points of these competing interpretations of the Medieval Warm Period, let me just mention one other theory. This comes from Lon Hocker, who is a physics graduate with a PhD from MIT, perhaps not the strongest set of credentials in this context, but certainly more impressive than my own A-level in the subject. Lon Hocker’s argument is summarised in the title of his paper, “The temperature rise has caused the CO2 increase, not the other way around.”
Whilst that may seem an absurd claim, his basic argument merits consideration: “A warmer ocean can hold less CO2, so increasing temperatures will release CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere.” Indeed, Dr Higgs makes a similar argument: “Throughout Phanerozoic time, CO2 seemingly correlated well with temperature (although all studies inevitably have low resolution). This is readily explained by warming oceans releasing CO2 and vice versa.”
The oceans are a reservoir for CO2. It is a commonplace observation, when liquids warm, they release dissolved gases, most obviously demonstrated when a kettle boils, but a perfectly evident phenomenon at lower temperatures. Len Hocker concludes his paper thus:
“We offer no explanation for why global temperatures are changing now or have changed in the past, but it seems abundantly clear that the recent temperature rise is not caused by the rise in CO2 levels.” [10]
Unsurprisingly, advocates for anthropogenic climate change have their own analysis of how CO2 interacts with the oceans, suggesting that our warming planet will result in “less atmospheric carbon dioxide being removed by the oceans.” [11] This appears to say something similar to Len Hocker, whilst actually turning his conclusion on its head. Now, I am not going to adjudicate this different analysis other than to say that Hocker’s basic argument has a simple logic that is difficult to entirely dismiss.
The politics of climate change
I imagine that you, a little like myself, may be feeling an unsettling dizzying sensation at this point and so I will navigate away from these conundrums for the moment to consider another tricky matter which bedevils our debate on the matter of climate change: that is, the way in which the issue has become politicised.
My observations on this topic are highly speculative, but I think worth reflecting on as we consider how the arguments are playing out. In very general terms, and doubtless with many exceptions, those committed to the values of capitalism, free markets, a small state and low taxation, are skeptical of the anthropogenic CO2 based link to climate change, whilst those who prefer the idea of regulated capitalism, a larger role for the state and taxation, particularly of the wealthy, broadly support the idea that CO2 is the villain and must be done away with. We see this polarisation most obviously in the politics of the United States, with its apotheosis (so far) being the election of Donald Trump and the withdrawal of the US from the Paris climate accords.
As I have already remarked, there are clearly exceptions to my political taxonomy, and in addition, very probably a large group who are not particularly politically engaged, but who are fond of their gas guzzling cars and foreign holidays and so, quite naturally latch on to those arguments which defend rather than threaten these perks of modern life. Donald Trump was happy to appeal to this demographic and has been very successful in winning their allegiance.
But to return to my original dichotomy between the political left and the right, the conservatives and the progressives, as they might also be described: why have allegiances divided along these lines?
Almost certainly this schism originates in the left of centre conviction that capitalism, for all the good things it has brought, has, from its very inception, been a destroyer of the environment, a polluter of rivers and oceans and of the air we breathe, and indifferent to the health and welfare of its workforce. I could go on, but I am sure you get the idea. This capitalist environmental indifference, most evident in the 19th century, has of course been mitigated by regulation, but explains the attachment of the political left to the idea that a larger state offers the best guarantee to protect the environment and, as we must now see it, the interests of the planet. To be clear, this represents my own view, though I recognise that many people engaged in business also accept the importance of finding a sustainable way to live which can preserve, so far as possible, the miraculous and myriad complexities of the world we share. But still, this polarisation and politicisation of the global warming argument has come to present a particular challenge to civilised dialogue, such that ideology rather reason, tribalism rather than independent thinking, have come to characterise much of what is said.
This of course begs the question of whether this ideological and tribal divide impacts the scientific community; do scientists lean more to the right or to the left of the political spectrum?
Practising scientists, by and large, are not people of business, though no doubt some are. It is also clear that business can offer scientists plenty of well-paid work. Where research is directly paid for by business however, it is generally regarded as of suspect provenance. Where the outcomes of such research are unwelcome to an industry, they may be quietly set to one side, whilst more agreeable areas of research and less challenging outcomes are sought. I have only to mention the tobacco industry to illustrate this truth.
In general what research scientists prize most is funding without strings attached and a freedom to publish whatever results may emerge. In this respect, state funding is probably a better bet than funding from the private sector, though the case of the Soviet scientist, Trofim Lysenko, “whose spurious research prolonged famines that killed millions” is evidence to the contrary.[12] Comrade Lysenko’s fake results were doubtless an outcome of the climate of fear which infected all significant cultural and scientific activity carried out in the Soviet Union under the ruthless gaze of Joseph Stalin.
Thankfully, a democratic framing of the state and a free press are generally a sufficient protection against this kind of terrorising political influence on scientific research. The modern scientific community has a tendency, I would suggest, to align with the political centre or left of centre in the hope of entrenching a culture of scientific objectivity, enabled by democratically sponsored research.
However, there can be no absolute escape from bias: all research, regardless of how it may be funded, will be subject to a spectrum of influences which researchers bring to their work. A possible layer of bias which may be at work in the case of climate research, if my political taxonomy has any validity, would be a tendency to lay blame for what is happening to our planet, on irresponsible and unregulated business and industrial practices, rather than to look elsewhere for the causes.
Scientists universally prize objectivity and evidence from properly conducted and reported research experiments, which can easily be replicated by other scientists such that the reliability of the results may be tested; but in the case of climate change, laboratory experiments cannot easily stand in for the complexities of the environment; it is evident that much faith is placed on data gathered from a multitude of sources and the inferences that may be drawn from this information. In this arena there is plenty of scope for speculation and hypothesis regarding the importance of this or that factor. Scientists, after all, are human and however careful in their observation and judgement, will be prone to draw conclusions which align with their preconceptions and perhaps also with the conclusions of any emerging consensus amongst their scientific peers. Any psychologist will be able to furnish examples of how such “confirmation bias” has been experimentally demonstrated. As Patricia Fara put it in a recent discussion of her soon to be published book, Newton: The Making of a Genius,
Scientists are ordinary human beings … we like to make them into mythical creatures who wander around and search for and actually obtain absolute truth, but they’re not, they’ve got their own prejudices, their own interests, they’re subject to commercial and political influences, exactly like everybody else.[13]
This comment suggests that it is incumbent on individuals on both sides of a highly polarised debate to reflect critically on their own contribution and the contribution of others who may align with their views.
Nigel Lawson’s appeal to reason? I’ve read it so you don’t have to …
A few years ago, I became aware that Nigel Lawson, former chancellor of the exchequer in the government of Margaret Thatcher, had written a book titled An Appeal to Reason – A Cool Look at Global Warming.[14] The central purpose of this book was to challenge the developing orthodoxy of an anthropogenic, CO2 based explanation of global warming. Somehow, I acquired a copy of Lawson’s book and thought I should try to make sense of his arguments but gave it up, unfinished, and without really getting to grips with what he was saying. Unquestionably, my continuing hostility to the Thatcher legacy made me an unreceptive and disrespectful reader. However, as my own, perhaps naïve, questions on the subject of global warming began to emerge, I thought I’d better have another go at Lord Lawson’s book, and was pleased to find that I had not returned it to its original owner.
Richard Lambert, reviewing An Appeal to Reason in the Guardian says of Lawson’s book: “Never one to suffer from an excess of humility, [he] is happy to attack the scientific might of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a ‘global quasi-monopoly’ whose judgment and integrity he finds open to question.” [15]
At my second attempt, I have been more successful in navigating the arguments and would be inclined to agree with Richard Lambert’s assessment that “Along with the polemics, he makes some sensible points.” To be clear, what follows is my own selection and summary of “sensible points”, plus a few additional observations.
The Sun’s possible role in climate change
It is hardly surprising that Lord Lawson gives some prominence to Henrik Svensmark and his work on the Sun’s role in climate change. Indeed the interview I mentioned earlier with Professor Svensmark and his son Jacob, was conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), “an all-party think tank” founded by Lord Lawson and Dr Benny Peiser on 23 November 2009. Certainly, the GWPF includes Labour Party MPs (or at least one at any rate) which may justify the “all-party” label, but much of what I have read suggests a general alignment of membership consistent with my earlier observations on politicisation of the debates around global warming.
Henrik Svensmark himself has indicated that we are reaching a critical point for his theory, in that he predicts a steadying of temperatures in the coming decade. I would also have to add that in the GWPF interview, his answers in relation to recent reports of rising global temperatures were, for me, unclear, perhaps even a little evasive, as if he were trying to maintain some wiggle room for his theory. Who could blame him? He has been working on it for over twenty years.
I think it fair to say that the many descriptions I see of GWPF as “climate change deniers” are at the very least, misleading. Still, when I listen to the Svensmark interview, it seems pretty clear that the two reporters came to the table with a clear agenda which Henrik Svensmark’s research and testimony fits well. Nevertheless, I thought their questions and clarifications were precise and fair and would personally hope that Henrik and Jacob Svensmark, and indeed other researchers, are provided with funds to look further into the Sun’s role in climate change.
Fuel for Conspiracy Theories
The marginalisation or wilful neglect of hypotheses and research which are, to a relatively uninformed member of the public such as myself, plausible, creates a rich medium for the growth of conspiracy theories. Comments on the Svensmark interview suggest just this; an opening salvo such as, “You never hear this kind of thing on the BBC” prompts a secondary comment, “and you never will…” and a third comment, “Or on any American television”.
I didn’t see anything in the discussion associated with the interview which represented the worst excesses of social media and there was a certain amount of what might pass for debate, and push back, notably from Energy Storage News but the quality of this debate seemed weak and tribal in character. Well what do you expect? It’s social media!
What I hope for, certainly, is continuing research into competing theories in respect of global warming, regardless of the consensus view. This issue is too important for research funding to be corralled in favour of a single perspective.
Adaptability of the human species
Lawson does not contest that our planet is warming and may continue to do so, but makes an important point about the way in which our species has an ability to adapt to a wide range of circumstances, particularly striking given that humans live in a range of latitudes, from the equator to the Arctic. Within this framework, the most significant limiting factor for human flourishing is not temperature, but rather, the availability of food. This is, of course, a testament to human ingenuity, but as Lawson points out, it is reasonable to expect that both collectively and individually we will continue to find ways to adapt to the climate challenges which, he accepts, do face us.
To support his point he refers to the European heatwave of 2003, during which “15,000 very elderly people died of dehydration.” This tragedy was most acutely experienced in France. Unsurprisingly, the French Government set up an enquiry into the matter. Lawson concludes: “As a result of the report from that enquiry, arrangements have been put in place (the annually updated plan canicule) which — at trivial cost — will prevent a repetition.”
I would add a further example of adaptation which was reported recently on the BBC’s People Fixing the World programme in an edition titled The Magic Greenhouse. Needless to say, the “greenhouse” in question is not a glass encased structure, but uses a net skin and is:
[c]ooled and humidified by seawater and the wind … [It] … is transforming arid land. In Somaliland, vegetables have been grown in a spot previously thought too hot and dry for farming.
When the design is perfected, it is predicted that for a relatively small investment in similar structures, Somaliland could become self-sufficient in food. [16]
The difficulty of establishing international agreements and actions based on a belief in anthropogenic global warming
Unrelated to the question of what is actually causing our climate to warm, Lord Lawson expresses considerable scepticism that international standards of carbon reduction can ever be agreed or implemented in the timescale proposed by the IPCC. In 2009 he was arguing that it would be politically unpalatable for China and India, for example, to curb their growth ambitions by eliminating their reliance on readily available and cheap coal for the generation of electricity. As I write in 2021, a range of wind and solar technologies have come to market which have some potential to challenge this pessimistic prediction, and yet the rise of populist leadership around the world clearly threatens progress on this front. Trumpism is an ongoing force in US Politics and resistance to the carbon reduction agenda continues, for many, to be an attractive feature of its platform. Looking further afield, we see Narendra Modi in India, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, and the continuing dominance in Russia of Vladimir Putin. Taken together with China, they represent an uncooperative awkward squad, often hostile to the ambitions of progressive forces within Europe and the United states and in no mood to take anything other than a fast track to prosperity for their citizens.
I certainly acknowledge the difficulty of establishing any kind of international consensus of policy and action, and can only offer the rather faint hope that new clean technologies will continue to come to market and be available so cheaply that they will be widely adopted. Obvious possible game changing candidates are nuclear fusion[17] and hydrogen power[18] … but I am not hopeful.
Lord Lawson’s clinching argument on this front, however, is that the carbon reductions demanded by the IPCC, (even if one accepts that CO2 is at the root of global warming), are based on a gross exaggeration of the risks, and so the targets proposed by the IPCC will prove irrelevant.
The possibility that IPCC modelling is based on questionable and worst case assumptions
The “deeply flawed … irrational alarmism” of IPCC modelling is unsurprisingly a consistent theme of Lord Lawson’s argument; but does he have a point?
Dr Higgs certainly does not pull his punches on this front.
Computer ‘climate models’ … are so full of assumptions (stacked upon other assumptions) as to be highly misleading at best, e.g. 1985-2015 warming forecast by 31 models turned out 2 to 4 times too high. Even pro-IPCC ‘tricky Wiki’ admitted: ‘Each model simulation has a different guess at processes that scientists don’t understand sufficiently well’.
I won’t pretend to offer authoritative comment on this dire assessment of the IPCC’s modelling, but it does pretty much line up with what Nigel Lawson is saying, and whilst Lawson may express himself in more elegant prose, he makes no attempt to hide his scorn for this aspect of the science on which the IPCC relies.
Whilst computer modelling may have become a good deal more sophisticated since the inflated predictions in The Limits to Growth, building a model which can accurately predict how our climate may be expected to develop in the coming century remains a very tricky task.
If one is trying, and failing, to draw attention to some major issue, then there is a natural temptation to over-dramatise and to frame one’s arguments in worst case scenarios. It does seem quite possible to me that the IPCC may in some degree be guilty of over-hyping and has perhaps become the prisoner of its own promotional success. It has built a consensus around the reality of global warming such that many scientists and non-scientists now believe that we are accelerating towards a tipping point, where warming will spiral out of control and life on earth will no longer be possible.
It would be good to see a more detailed profiling of what scientists are thinking. It is one thing, for example, for there to be a consensus around the idea that CO2 is implicated in the warming of our environment. It is another thing to believe that it is the only or even the principal cause, and yet another thing to believe that we have a very limited amount of time to avoid climate catastrophe. What, for example, do scientists believe with regard to our ability to adapt to global warming as we move through the coming decades? And by the way, Dr Higgs may have a point when he argues that the consensus regarding the role of CO2 reflects only the views of climate scientists and excludes the perspective of others who have relevant expertise and data on climate change across millennia, and who “are not part of the ‘consensus’, having never been polled.”
Geoengineering
Where tipping points and catastrophe are concerned, however, Nigel Lawson has a trick up his sleeve: “geoengineering; that is, the technology of cooling the planet in relatively short order, should the need ever become pressing.”
This is not as fanciful as it seems and anyone who has listened to TED talks may well have come across some proposals of this kind. The idea, as Lawson points out, is to reproduce naturally what happens when large volcanoes erupt. He uses the example of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 which resulted in a cooling of the earth in 1992 and 1993 of “at least 0.6C with no recorded adverse effects”. He is careful to say that such technologies should be deployed with caution and only used as a last resort.
The podcast Brave New Planet discussed this option in some detail in a recent edition and expressed many concerns as regards the unpredictability of outcomes. Nevertheless Lawson points out that in 2009 research was being carried out in the US into geoengineering. You must judge for yourself whether this is a useful hedge against the worst case warming scenario or just a device for Nigel Lawson to brush off the arguments in favour of taking no risks, given that the stakes are so high. [19]
Could carbon reduction turn out to be wasteful and pointless?
There are a number of points where I definitely disagree with Nigel Lawson. For example, he presents measures to reduce carbon as wasteful and pointless, whereas, my sense is that the world is actually benefiting already from research, development and implementation of technologies intended to reduce our carbon footprint. Our vehicles are more fuel efficient and cleaner; our new houses are built to a higher standard of insulation and are cheaper to heat. Investments in solar and wind technologies have been successfully integrated into the electricity grid and are making a significant contribution to our energy needs and proving to be the cheapest source of energy available, at least according to the rather well-informed testimony of Douglas Fraser, CEO of Scottish Power.[20]
Putting a man on the moon is a wonderful example of a wasteful and pointless adventure. On September 12, 1962, John F Kennedy made his famous commitment: “We choose to go to the moon.” This was a hugely expensive vanity project for the US, prompted by Soviet successes in being first to put a man into space. Yet the US space programme produced important spin-offs which fed into the subsequent development of the US economy, as documented by Marianna Mazzacato in her book, Mission Economy.[21] I would suggest that similar benefits are already emerging from the drive to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
Could the elimination of carbon from our economy be simply unaffordable. Where will the money come from?
I would agree that the goal of going carbon neutral by 2050 may not be achievable, but that is more to do with a possible shortfall in labour, ingenuity and training, or a failure to deploy, (or mismanagement of) these resources, rather than a shortage of finance. A great project of this kind may be, together with compatible infrastructure investment, the very thing to rebuild our economy.
Capitalism is still struggling to recover from the slump of 2008 and is now reeling from the setback of Covid-19. Despite our unprecedented productive potential, the introduction of robot technologies threatens to push much of the workforce into poorly paid and insecure jobs, and these tendencies taken together threaten us with ongoing economic stagnation. The push towards a carbon neutral economy may or may not be an imminent necessity, but it is in all events a worthwhile project in the longer term, certainly, in my view, more worthwhile than sending a few men to the moon, magnificent though that achievement was.
Life on Mars?
It is important, nevertheless, that the consensus which is driving us towards rapid carbon reduction should not go unchallenged; indeed, it is important that the very existence of this consensus should be questioned and analysed. Are there important and relevant scientific perspectives to which the IPCC is not giving sufficient weight, or perhaps wilfully ignoring?
But for the time being, the IPCC perspective is in the driving seat and cannot easily be dismissed. Whether they prove to be on the right track or not, the policy and objectives that flow from their recommendations, as I have argued, can offer us a prosperous future; however, if the debates around global warming remain polarised and tribal, then we may struggle to progress in any useful direction. And let us not forget that anthropogenic impacts are indisputable in many other areas of great concern, from destruction of habitat, with many species struggling for survival, to plastic pollution of the oceans with consequent threats to food safety and quality; securing a sustainable future will surely be dependent on building a popular consensus around what is to be done in relation to all of these challenges. Elon Musk may dream of building cities on Mars[22] but I think most of us understand that our urgent priority is ensuring the optimal functioning of the one World we already have in our care.
Footnotes
[2] 33 bullet points prove global warming by the Sun, not CO2: by a GEOLOGIST for a change. Paper from geologist, Dr Roger Higgs
[3] FORCE MAJEURE The Sun’s Role in Climate Change Scientific paper, Henrik Svensmark
[4] Interview: Prof Henrik Svensmark & Jacob Svensmark discuss the connection between cosmic rays, clouds and climate with the GWPF’s Benny Peiser and Jonny Bairstow from Energy Live News. I have raised a question in the comments area of the video requesting clarification as regards what Henrik Svensmark has to say on recent annual global average temperatures, but, as I write, have received no response.
POST SCRIPT! As of 25July2021 the question I have asked remains unanswered. However Sven Feuerbacher, following an affirmative comment regarding my question, engaged with the above essay, which prompted him to provide a range of arguments defending the IPCC in the face of some of what I say and and also challenging the assertions of Dr Higgs and the conclusions of Lon Hocker. Sven Feuerbacher is respectful of the Svensmark research but less so of their “public claims that their research somehow has refuted decades of evidence for the role of greenhouse gases.” Where Nigel Lawson book is concerned, Sven Feurbacher says: “The book is from 2009. The science has been settled since about 1980. And anthropogenic global warming is as much an orthodoxy as the existence of atoms.” Not sure that I can entirely agree with the final sentence, but I get the drift! Sven Feurbacher’s comments can be found in full detail here.
[5] Papers on the non-significant role of cosmic rays in climate [Blog: Observations of anthropogenic global warming]
[7] Greenhouse Effect – Wikipedia The greenhouse explained.
[8]New Scientist: Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
[9] Skeptical Science: How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
[10] A study: The temperature rise has caused the CO2 Increase, not the other way around
[11] Warming oceans less able to store organic carbon
[12] Wikipedia entry on Soviet scientist, Trofim Lysenko: Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics in favour of pseudoscientific ideas termed Lysenkoism.
[13] BBC broadcast/podcast: Start the Week – Newton, science and worldly riches Quotation at approximately 4:00, though there is further relevant discussion throughout. Also of interest in the consideration of the fallibilities of scientists is BBC Radio 4’s Analysis, episode: Science in the Time of Covid-19
[14] Nigel Lawson – An Appeal to Reason A more recent essay from Lord Lawson may be found on the GWPF website: The Trouble with Climate Change
[15] Talk about hot air – A review of Nigel Lawson’s Appeal to Reason.
[16] BBC broadcast/podcast: People fixing the world — The Magic Greenhouse A greenhouse cooled and humidified by seawater and the wind is transforming arid land. In Somaliland, vegetables have been grown in a spot thought too hot and dry for farming.
[17] BBC News report – Nuclear fusion is ‘a question of when, not if’
[18] BBC News story – Hydrogen power: Firms join forces in bid to lower costs
[19] Podcast: Brave New Planet Could altering the Earth’s atmosphere to reflect back some of the sun’s rays be a solution to climate change? It would likely decrease global temperatures, but it might lead to climate wars. Humanity might become “addicted” to it for survival. And ultimately would this technology only distract us from tackling the real problem of carbon emissions?
[20] BBC Broadcast/Podcast: Long Interview Good Morning Scotland Douglas Fraser, speaks to Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power, about the future of green energy and the prospects for electric cars.
[21] Review of Mission Economy, by Marianna Mazzacato.
[22] What is Elon Musk’s Starship
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Elaine for help with proof reading, advice and comment. The final product, including errors, are mine.
Featured image
Carruchan 