ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

Thanks to the BBC for this unscientific survey.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081026.stm

Eric Siegel

==============================================================

What do "climate sceptics" believe?

You might think that you know the answer, having heard, seen and read  
numerous counter-blasts aimed at the Intergovernmental Panel on  
Climate Change (IPCC) over the course of this year, as the three  
components of its landmark climate assessment were published.

Despite having reported on climate change for more than a decade, I  
realised at the beginning of the year that I was not entirely sure.

On a sceptic's blog I would read "global warming isn't happening".  
Then I would read an op-ed saying "warming is happening but it's  
entirely natural". Later, someone would tell me "it is happening, it  
is caused by greenhouse gases, but the effect is so small it won't  
matter".

Either there was a genuine divergence in the views of the sceptical  
science community, I concluded, or their analyses were somehow getting  
scrambled in transmission through blogs, newsletters, and the  
mainstream media.

	
I hope it will scotch the view that sceptical scientists generally  
believe the Earth's surface is not getting warmer

The sceptics' top 10
What sceptics believe is an important question, because their voices  
are heard in governments, editors' offices, boardrooms, and - most  
importantly - the street.

Their arguments sway the political approaches of some important  
countries, notably the US, which in turn influence the global  
discussions on whether to do anything about rising CO2 levels.

So I decided I had better try to find out.

Into the ether

The best approach seemed to be the simplest - just ask them. But first  
I had to define who I meant by "them".

Rather than choosing a group of people myself, I decided to use a  
group which had already been compiled by sceptics' organisations.

In April 2006, a group of 61 self-styled "accredited experts in  
climate and related scientific disciplines" wrote an open letter to  
Canada's newly elected prime minister, Stephen Harper, asking his  
government to initiate hearings into the scientific foundations of the  
nation's climate change plan.

	
Email to sceptics

The Financial Post letter
The BBC questionnaire
The letter, complete with a list of signatories, was published in  
Canada's Financial Post newspaper.

Many, though not all, of the signatories were indeed scientists active  
in fields relating to climate science. And the group was large enough  
to suggest I might receive a workable number of replies.

So I compiled a questionnaire about their views on climate change  
science, with a dose of politics thrown in, and mailed it out.

I cannot guarantee that all 61 received it; I was unable to obtain  
contact details for one person, and was less than certain that I had  
correct details for three of the others.

On the other hand, I was fairly sure that the questionnaire would be  
spread through the blogosphere and - what should we call it? - the  
emailosphere? - which turned out to be so.

Filling in

I went into this exercise not completely knowing what to expect; I  
guessed I would receive a wide variety of responses, and I was right.

Fourteen of the group filled in the questionnaire, in varying degrees  
of detail; another 11 replied without filling it in.

Of these, some sent links to articles explaining their position. Some  
replied with academic papers, for which I am grateful, especially to  
Doug Hoyt who mailed a number of references that I had not previously  
seen.

Some said this was a worthwhile exercise. Some, in circulated emails,  
said the opposite, in terms which were sometimes so frank that others  
of the group apologised on their behalf.

Down to details

	
London city scene

Heat island effect clarified
So to the results. Ten out of the 14 agreed that the Earth's surface  
temperature had risen over the last 50 years; three said it had not,  
with one equivocal response.

Nine agreed that atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon  
dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide had risen over the last century,  
with two saying decidedly that levels had not risen. Eight said that  
human factors were principally driving the rise.

Twelve of the fourteen agreed that in principle, rising greenhouse gas  
concentrations should increase temperatures.

But eight cited the Sun as the principal factor behind the observed  
temperature increase.

And nine said the "urban heat island" effect - where progressive  
urbanisation around weather stations has increased the amount of heat  
generated locally - had affected the record of historical temperatures.

Eleven believed rising greenhouse gas concentrations would not result  
in "dangerous" climate change, and 12 said it would be unwise for the  
global community to restrain production of carbon dioxide and the  
other relevant gases, with several suggesting that such restraint  
would bring economic disruption.

	
Ice core. Image: L. Augustin/LGGE

CO2 levels shown in ice
Carbon dioxide levels climb
'Unexpected rise' in CO2
One of my more gracious respondents, Arthur Rorsch, suggested that  
rising CO2 might help "green" the world, with increases in food supply.

There was general disdain for the Kyoto Protocol, with respondents  
split roughly equally between saying it was the wrong approach to an  
important issue, and a meaningless exercise because there was no point  
in trying to curb emissions.

There was general agreement, too, that computer models which try to  
project the climate of the future are unreliable. Several respondents  
said the climate system was inherently unpredictable and therefore  
impossible to model in a computer.

The other questions produced sets of responses which I could not boil  
down into anything approaching a consensus view.

Warm agreement

I do not think that anyone would take this exercise as a comprehensive  
assessment of the views of climate sceptics, which is probably an  
impossible task.

They are a disparate community, and if you put any two together they  
would surely disagree on some aspect of the science - just as would  
any two researchers you picked out from any discipline.

	
NEC's Earth Simulator supercomputer (Image: NEC)

Models 'key' to climate future
But I hope it provides a snapshot of where the scientific  
disagreements that sceptics have with the IPCC begin and end - for one  
thing, scotching the view (prevalent in my in-box) that sceptical  
scientists generally believe the Earth's surface is not really getting  
warmer.

The IPCC and many of the world's climate scientists would, of course,  
profoundly disagree with the conclusions evidenced by this small  
group, and I have linked to some articles which detail some of the  
science behind their disagreement.

This exercise would not be complete without discussing some of the non- 
scientific comments and responses to my mailout, which represent a  
window into the suspicion, indignation and politicisation surrounding  
climate science today.

That, though, is for later in the week.

[log in to unmask]



***********************************************************************
For information about the Association of Science-Technology Centers and the Informal Science Education Network please visit www.astc.org.

Check out the latest case studies and reviews on ExhibitFiles at www.exhibitfiles.org.

The ISEN-ASTC-L email list is powered by LISTSERVR software from L-Soft. To learn more, visit
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html.

To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]