COP15 - Is it Based on Science or Politics?

One thing that the recent "Climategate" episode may have done is to rightly focus more attention on the science that is really the driving force behind the COP15 meeting currently taking place in Copenhagen. Reading through the hacked e-mails published on various blog sites, it becomes obvious very quickly that the rigor and pure approach of science has been totally overwhelmed and compromised by politics and money.

Science should work on the basis of an open, free debate and a fair peer review process. If that is stifled then what we have is neither science nor reliable. What these e-mails show can be summarized as follows:

• The neutral and unbiased approach necessary in science has been replaced with almost a religious fervor that seeks a particular finding at almost any cost including carefully choosing exactly what data is used,
• The data is a mess with, for example, instances of data from recording stations predating that stations inception and, data of unknown quality and origin,
• Avoiding public scrutiny of the data and assumptions even to the point of destroying it,
• The scientists involved appear determined to use their reputations and any available tool to block the peer review process meaning those with a different opinion cannot get published and are subject to having their reputations questioned.

Science or Politics?

The original hypothesis that carbon and other "green house gas" emissions is causing the Earth to warm began as a scientific endeavor, but now appears to have evolved into a political matter where the science is playing second fiddle to other motives. And the reason why it is political and a mess, frankly, may be found in the root of modern politics—money. One only has to look around at this Summit—full of lobbyists with check books. What is required and long overdue is a full and independent audit of climate science and the models used so that the scientists can once again be confident they are operating with accurate information.

As a trained scientist, the one phrase that upsets me most is "the science is proven." Anyone who has ever practiced scientific method and rigor understands the sheer philosophical ridiculousness of this statement. Science is a process and methodology of observing known facts, creating a hypothesis and then allowing that hypothesis to be critiqued or replaced by your peer group. Scientific theories evolve as a result and from time to time an advance occurs that throws accepted scientific theory on its head!

Let's examine the science just a little. Let's start by establishing an indisputable fact and, one that is very important: CO2 levels in the atmosphere have gone up in the last few decades from an upper limit over the last 400,000 years of 300 parts per million (ppm) to 370ppm or thereabouts. Much of this increase is down to man's activities as it has increased steadily trough time. We are "filling" our atmosphere with CO2.

However, the basis for COP15 and other past climate agreements is based on the assertion that CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming and that we are at, or already have, passed the point of no return such that atmospheric levels of CO2 will cause considerable warming with all the attendant problems—sea level rise, weather changes etc. Actually, I would argue that while evidence indicates this hypothesis could be true, it is still far from unequivocally proven. Furthermore, the archeological and geological evidence data suggests something quite different—that the changes in climate being observed today are quite normal variations in climate and that CO2 has little, if anything, to do with those variations in climate. It is worth noting that climate science actually amounts to developing and estimating climate models. Temperature data is collected and projected into the future with various assumptions about CO2 and temperature changes to see what may happen to the Earth's temperatures. The results haven't actually been very accurate and it is only one of many possible methods for looking at the earth's climate. For example, tree ring data suggests that the Earth's atmosphere could be cooling. At other times, the rush to publish has opened the results to ridicule as in the case last year when it turned out that a sudden spike in global temperature was simply due to an error rolling over Russian temperature data.

Climate History and Observation

The Earth's average temperature changes frequently though time as does the atmospheric CO2 content. In fact, recent observations regarding climate change are still geologically well within the bounds of very normal for our planet. But perhaps even stranger is the historical relationship between CO2 and temperature where you may be surprised to learn that temperature rises and falls actually precede CO2 increases and decreases. The observable evidence tends to suggest that historically much of the geological climate change has little to do with CO2 content of the atmosphere. Consider that 460 million years ago, CO2 concentrations where 4,400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today. Ice core data show that both temperatures, and with around an 800 year lag time, CO2, have been increasing for the last 18,000 years—long before man was around to have any influence. It's strange but climate change advocates continue to use this ice core data suggesting that it shows that CO2 is causing temperature rises when this was long ago shown to be false.

Another aspect of the inability to debate the science is the lack of understanding of time. "But, I see it with my own eyes—the glaciers are melting," said the Greenpeace demonstrator I met outside of COP15. The problem is that the Earth and its processes are very complex and that one must look at these things in geological time, not a decade or single human life span! This planet has had no polar ice on many occasions and the Earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have simply reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. We have been here before in the geologically recent past and man wasn't there at the time to be held responsible.

Summary

Does any of this prove the argument for or against? In my view, not yet—more research is required and that research needs to be open and subject to scrutiny and debate. In the meantime, COP15 moves on and this week approaches the difficult task of reaching actual agreement. It may be that discussing the science is irrelevant now so far as COP15 is concerned. Public opinion has shifted to one of demanding action, and while this may be a case of "if you tell the people often enough something is so, they will believe it." I would like to see that full and independent audit and debate around the science.

As for COP15? Well, if we take the view that CO2 is a pollutant and that the Earth has finite resources, then shifting our paradigm to a greener and less polluted future isn't such a bad thing.