Climate Change Denial — Book Review
30Dec. 11
I’ve read a lot of great science books this year, but the one that stood out the most for me so far was “Climate Change Denial; Heads in the Sand” by Haydn Washington and John Cook. With all the spin and political motivations behind climate change denial (especially at the moment in Australia with the introduction of the Carbon Tax), it’s great to have forms of media that neutralize the spin and simply present the science, such as this book.
If you’re a critical thinker and just want some cold, hard facts about climate change, this book has the facts; although the authors do admit that there are several other great books out there that explain the science in greater detail. You can also access a wealth of facts from John Cook’s website www.skepticalscience.com. What makes this book so great is that it gives a well-rounded account of the whole issue.
The book begins with the hard-hitting statement that skepticism and denial are different. Everyone should be skeptical about the world, scientists are especially skeptical, but denying something is to ignore all or some of the facts. You can’t ignore facts if you’re a scientist. The authors also set the definition of science straight by explaining that it is a discipline that deals with probabilities and evidence. You can never actually technically prove anything in science, so it relies on gathering facts and a large scientific consensus, until someone can disprove the theory. That’s how science works!
The actual science of climate change is then neatly summarised. The authors eloquently explain that climate can be forced by a number of factors such as volcanic eruptions, solar variation, orbital variations and changes in greenhouse gases. When modelling the climate, the models can only match the current temperatures when natural AND anthropogenic (human-caused) forcings are combined. From this and additional information, Climate Scientists have surmised that the Earth has warmed by 0.7 degrees Celsius, due to human causes. If you go out and survey a big group of Climate Scientists about this, you’ll find that 97% of them agree. Now, that’s what I call statistically significant.
The book goes on to explain the delicate balance of the carbon cycle and how deniers of the science often get the figures wrong. It also explains the processes of positive and negative feedback systems and how positive feedback could potentially lead to runaway climate change (hello Venus!). And, very importantly it explains the climate modelling process and how like any model, they are subject to various uncertainties. It’s just the nature of modelling; if it was 100% accurate, it wouldn’t be a model… it would essentially be seeing into the future, which is impossible unless you believe in the existence of psychics.
The second half of the book takes a fresh turn to examine the denial of the deniers. Here is a list of all the types of arguments and techniques they use to deny climate change science:
- Conspiracy theories – like the ol’ Climate Gate “disgrace” that was meant to be the biggest scientific scandal in history. There were actually six independent reviews into this ‘scandal’, none of which found evidence of scientific misconduct or fraud.
- Fake experts – e.g. some bozo undergraduate who studied Animal Science or something else irrelevant to Climate Science.
- Impossible expectations – A denier will often say “Climate models are unreliable”. So again, show me a model that is 100% reliable!
- Misrepresentations and logical fallacies – “Climate has always changed in the past”. BUT, it has never been at such a rapid rate of change.
- … and finally, my favourite: Cherry picking – e.g. “This one scientist says it’s the sun that doing it, so we should only listen to that guy”.
The best thing about this book is that it isn’t afraid to say what many of us have been thinking; that this society is fixated on this unsustainable and completely stupid idea of perpetual economic growth. So much so, that big business elicits ‘green-scam’ groups that go around giving supposedly unbiased conferences on why climate change is a farce. There is a list of such organizations at the end of the book. Ian Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth”, a popular denier’s book, is completely ripped to shreds. A quick Wikipedia search on Ian will show you that he is the director of four different mining companies… hmm… conflict of interest? Controversial topics such as human population, the media, and people’s willingness to change are also addressed.
Finally and most importantly, the authors tell us how we can use technology to fight climate change and roll back the denial. According to a collaborative energy research study by The University of Melbourne, Australia could be powered 100% by renewable energy in just 10 years, at a cost of 3% GDP per year. Here is a link to the paper. The validity of Nuclear Power and Carbon Capture and Storage are shown to be mere pipe dreams that come with their own share of further problems. There is much more hope in solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and bioenergy technologies.
So, if you’re looking for a beautifully well-rounded account of the science, political issues and the blatant denial of climate change, then this is definitely the book for you. It has given me a new found confidence to tackle debates on the topic and also ensured me that there are some wonderful critical thinkers out there, unafraid to seek the truth on such an important issue. I give it 4 and a half sandwiches out of 5!
January 1st, 2012 at 10:43 am
Sad to see that a group claiming to be skeptics are so easily taken in by the scam.
This article contains: “If you go out and survey a big group of Climate Scientists about this, you’ll find that 97% of them agree”, referring to a survey which contained both selection and framing bias.
These Young Skeptics have a lot to learn, and some growing up to do.
You can’t ignore facts if you’re a scientist, but you will question each one.
You can’t blindly accept claims if you’re a skeptic OR a scientist.
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:52 pm
I love how scientists to support their argument will use scraps of data and collate them in such a ways as to build a “scientific” case for their argument, this book contains about as much truth as Al Gore’s movie in which he didn’t let the truth and facts get in the way of a story he wanted to tell. This book is the same but hey it attracts government funding because that is what they want to hear.
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:21 am
uh, what the hell did you type this post on? Its filled with extraneous characters.
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:51 pm
This review is pure science denial. It only pushes one side of the debate and uses the same cherry picked strawman arguments that have routinely poisoned the debate rather than enhance it.
Since the author is unable to write a balanced article, I will add some info to create a balance and will leave the readers to investigate themselves and hopefully show that the science isn’t settled for the benefit of improving scientific methods towards climate science, as well as, researching the political and monetary motivations behind some of the spin.
The site that calls itself “skeptical” is anything but. They have even edited past articles to cover their own shortcomings http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/20/cooking-the-books.html.
The 97% consensus fallacy is based on a very small sample group based on a survey of two questions, which were very open ended to begin with. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html.
Here are some sites of interest for those who truly have a sceptical mind:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://judithcurry.com/
http://climateaudit.org/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
I thank you in advanced for allowing this reply to be published.
January 4th, 2012 at 7:39 am
Young people more interested in science than the Kardashians:) Does my old heart good, great site!
January 5th, 2012 at 8:07 am
Great review of a book on a topic that will be debated for years, till the predicted disasters start to rip our world apart. By that time the debate (that is currently in the media NOT in science) will be settled. Will it be too late, I suspect so and the future of this world will be somewhat nastier that we would have hoped for. To me, how people can expect to make massive changes to their environment with no consequences is unbelievable. Just like capitalism expects to be able to continiously grow with a finite set of resources.
Hopefully I am wrong! I will be glad to be proven so.
January 20th, 2012 at 11:50 am
Interesting to see the same old objections being raised by the people who deny the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
Fortunately, this is a site for true sceptics, not the false sceptics who have loud voices and an interesting disregard for the data. In order to balance the first few comments, especially the rant by D. Bonson, I urge interested people to look at the science, which is largely settled and discussed by reputable scientists at numerous blogs.
More importantly, the peer reviewed literature in reputable science journals on the subject is dominated by papers from scientists who understand the physics and the data. In fact, the only ‘doubter’ paper I can recall recently was published in the journal Remote Sensing and was subsequently found to be so flawed that the editor resigned very publicly.
I could attach a list of web resources for interested people to follow, as D. Bonson did above, but that is of limited value. Instead, I suggest anyone wanting to learn about the science and the false information from the doubters should study the Eureka Award winning site Skeptical Science. Especially look at the most popular myths and what the real science says — that is what is important.
In a nutshell, the important science is settled, with details still being ironed out. There is no question that the world is warming, we are causing it and it will have bad effects. What remains to be done is to refine our projections for how much the planet will warm and understand more about how bad the effects will be.
The debate exists only in the field of economics, where powerful interests are opposed to any political action that will reduce profits, hence Tony Abbott’s fanatical opposition to the Carbon Tax.
If you want to understand AGW, follow the science. If you want to understand the politics, follow the money.
January 24th, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Thank you for listing those sites D Bonson. These have given me some additional insight into the machinations of climate science and have left me wanting to find out more in the last few weeks.
I guess the science really isn’t settled after all.
February 2nd, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Your guess, Michael? You don’t need to guess, if you study the evidence. ‘The science’ continues to reinforce the immediacy of the threat from AGW. If you go to the source — i.e. the publishing climate scientists, who are doing the research and offering their work up for scrutiny by their peers — you will find ‘the science’ strongly supports the theory of AGW.
Be careful just following links posted in blogs, because they may lead to sources of deliberate misinformation and misinterpretation. Find a source which provides links to the original papers and read the original findings of the researchers. One such site is Skeptical Science, but there are many.
Check the credentials of the commentators you listen to and ensure they do not have an agenda likely to bias their reporting, especially if they are commentators upon other people’s work, rather than themselves doing the research. Just because you read an opinion in a blog does not mean that opinion stands up to rational scrutiny.
Be a true sceptic. Don’t accept someone’s ‘spin’ on the science: go to the source, review the evidence for yourself, then decide for yourself whether “the science really isn’t settled after all”. Hint: first, decide what the word ‘settled’ means in this context.