Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Scientific certainty in an uncertain world

By Kellie Tranter - posted Wednesday, 24 March 2010


In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. From the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development a key international agreement currently in force to which Australia is a party.

Kerry Emanuel, Director of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recently said:

... Science cannot now and probably never will be able to do better than to assign probabilities to various outcomes of the uncontrolled experiment we are now performing, and the time lag between emissions and the response of the climate to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations forces us to make decisions sooner than we would like. We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come ...

Advertisement

The most fundamental problem with the “climate change debate” is that a small disparate group of “loud and proud” people are manufacturing popular doubt. Lawmakers, gullible through the scientific ignorance they share with most of the community, are then cajoled into not taking action even though there is scientific certainty about the fundamental premises.

We’re being distracted from the objective realities of what is actually happening to our planet and to us, and their enormity, by what is really a comparatively vacuous nitpicking exercise that has been unwarrantedly elevated to and popularly promoted as a “debate”. The “debate” itself needs to be scrutinised as carefully as its subject matter, if not even more carefully. Leah Ceccarelli, Associate Professor, Department of Communication, University of Washington and author of the book, Shaping Science with Rhetoric, hits it on the head when she says:

Aristotle believed that things that are true "have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites" but that it takes a skilled user of rhetoric to defeat sophisticated sophistry. I concur. The manufactured controversy must be exposed for what it is - the assertion of an important scientific debate where none exists.
 
Science will continue to be the victim of anti-science sophistry until the defenders of science learn to use my field - rhetoric - to achieve what Aristotle envisioned for it: to make strong arguments carry the day before an audience of non-experts.

She accurately describes global warming scepticism as an example of manufactured controversy, noting that it “has been called an “epistemological filibuster” because it magnifies the uncertainty surrounding a scientific truth claim in order to delay adoption of a policy warranted by that science.”

There’s a ring of truth and familiarity to her suggestion that “sceptics” seem to be “following the playbook of the tobacco industry after scientists discovered that their products cause cancer. When a threat to their interests arises from the scientific community, they declare “there are always two sides to a case”, and then call for more study of the matter before action is taken. It’s not just the tobacco industry, either: the same thing happened with profitable industries like lead in paint, pesticides, CFCs and asbestos.

How many people have died and are still dying as a result of those filibusters?

Advertisement

Scientific examination and argument abstracted from the objective reality of what’s happening - that is, abstracted from the reality all of us can see and feel - is open to abuse as supporting an argument for scientific uncertainty when none really exists. We can learn a lot about how to deal with expert evidence by looking at our judges: they are professional decision-makers who deal every day with scientific and other expert evidence in the cases they have to decide, and the approach they have developed is instructive in considering the climate change "debate". Judges aren't usually scientists or formal logicians, but they understand that decisions about human affairs can't be left exclusively to "experts".

Adapting what Chief Justice Herron said in EMI (Australia) Limited v Bes (1970) 44 WCR 114 at 119:

It is not incumbent upon the people who want action, upon whom the onus rests, to produce evidence from experts which proves that their contention is correct. Science may say in individual cases that there is no possible connection between the events and the consequence in which case, of course, if the facts stand outside an area in which common experience can be the touchstone, then the judge cannot act as if there were a connection. But if science is prepared to say that it is a possible view, then in my opinion the judge, after examining the non-expert evidence, may decide that there is a probable connection. It is only when science completely denies the possibility of any such connection that the judge is not entitled to act on his own intuitive reasoning.

This approach has been resoundingly endorsed by such outstanding legal scholars as Mr Justice Glass in the New South Wales Court of Appeal, and our current Chief Justice, Justice Spigelman. The law also requires that expert opinion must truly be expert, it must be non-partisan and it must expose its reasoning processes to popular scrutiny.

If a Court were to determine a case about human induced climate change on these principles it would examine, first, whether or not the scientific evidence allowed for the possibility of human activity contributing to overall levels of greenhouse gas. That having been established then the court would determine whether or not there is a probable connection - more likely than not - by looking at the scientific evidence in conjunction with other relevant facts bearing on the issue, like what’s actually happening.

Many, if not most, reputable scientists actually engage in similar processes although they tend to apply a more rigorous approach in the sense of applying tenets of scientific, mathematical and statistical processes to determining "facts". They still draw inferences, but like judges they can't rely on conjectures or guesses.

An excellent example of this approach by scientists is an article published in Nature in 2001. The authors analysed changes in the spectra of longwave radiation as measured by orbiting spacecraft and concluded that their analysis provided "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiating forcing of climate". The paper makes compelling reading, and I'm not aware of the author's approach having been demonstrated to be unsound or unscientific.

In the climate change “debate”, however, the argument tends to be aimed at specific end events and not at the more important basic premises. For example, it’s probably impossible to say with certainty that events like the Black Saturday bushfires or Hurricane Katrina were directly “caused” by greenhouse gas emissions, but it is a scientific certainty that rising greenhouse gas emissions are changing and will change our climate.

But to a large extent these comments are by the by because we are dealing with a manufactured controversy and there is no real "debate". It is simply no longer acceptable for a small number of climate change struthonians to be given undue airtime to prolong their filibuster. Nor should they get away with their scientifically dishonest attempts to refute climate change science by engaging in tactics like deliberately commencing data from an el Niño year like 1998 to skew results. Or putting forward data which examines trends over only a cherry-picked short period rather than scientifically significant periods like 20 years or more. Or the much-repeated gaffe of asserting that in the past Earth experienced much higher air temperatures and much higher CO2 than we have today, without also pointing out that those times include the Eocene 40 million years ago, when humans didn’t exist and sea levels were 50 metres higher than today.

It's about time we saw reputable scientists and scientific bodies coming out - as we have in recent days with the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO report and with Australia's Chief Scientist - to tell the general public what the evidence clearly shows.

In any case, isn't there a common sense general argument in support of action to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions? The propositions might go something along the following lines:

  1. C02 is a gas that has well-measured greenhouse effects (UK physicist John Tyndall first demonstrated this in the 1850s).
  2. C02 levels have risen since the industrial revolution and are now rising rapidly.
  3. The existing overall concentrations of C02, even without any further increases, could have dangerous environmental consequences.
  4. Human activity generates an increasing quantity of C02. We are certain of the human component of CO2 in the atmosphere from isotopic analysis. Isotopic analysis shows that human generated C02 is the major contributor to the increased greenhouse gas levels of the past few centuries.
  5. Irrespective of the proportional extent of the human contribution to overall C02 levels, the only thing we can do is to act by changing what we do and how we do it to reduce our contribution to the overall C02 level.
  6. Humans can reduce the level of C02 they generate by changing their behaviour and in particular by ramping up use of low-carbon technologies.
  7. Therefore, we must change our behaviour and do what we can to reduce our generation of greenhouse gases.

The message for all of our politicians is clear: the people in whose interests you govern, whether you know it or not and whether you like it or not, need a stable climate to live, to work, to raise their families, to love and to grow old. Just as birds need trees and polar bears need ice. Humans aren’t unique. And whether you know it or not, our entire physical environment - our cities, our infrastructure and our patterns of land use - all were established during a very stable climate era. Did you notice that Frisch wrote about "Man in the Holocene", not beyond it!

Scientists aren’t scare-mongering when, almost unanimously in both numbers and disciplines, they describe the challenges we will face with an average global temperature rise of more than 2 degrees. The impacts become even worse at temperature increases of 3 degrees and above, a warming level we are headed for without action to reduce emissions. We citizens know it’s happening, too, which was an important part of why we booted out the Howard government in 2007.

If you choose to accept the manufactured controversy promoted by a small number of naysayers and eco-backsliders, and say that the “room for debate” justifies your inaction, you are failing in your duty to those you represent. You won’t maintain the status quo by doing nothing because the destabilisation will continue, and if you do nothing it will accelerate. If you adhere to some naïve notion that we can adapt our environment to suit us rather than we having to adapt to our environment you are demonstrating one defining characteristic that does make some humans unique: an ignorant anthropocentricity reeking of selfishness as individuals and as a species.

Fortunately most people didn’t hold that view in 2007, and they don’t hold it now. If you continue to sit on your hands, gagged by the filibustering, may you pay the appropriate price when you next face the electorate!

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

36 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Kellie Tranter is a lawyer and human rights activist. You can follow her on Twitter @KellieTranter

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Kellie Tranter

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Kellie Tranter
Article Tools
Comment 36 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy