Attempt to Manipulate and Confuse Public Thinking on Climate Change

Andy Ho, Senior Writer of The Straits Times wrote an article on Reasons for Singapore to be cool on global warming – Emissions cap will slow growth while scientific evidence is not clear-cut, published on 30 Oct 09. This is not the first time that he has debunk global warming, read his 2007 article: Who or what is the real culprit? and Eugene’s reply: The real culprit of global warming? Human activities.

This is Eugene’s reply to the Straits Times Forum on his article:

I refer to the article, “Reasons for S’pore to be cool on global warming” by Andy Ho (ST Oct 30).

As a compulsive reader of The Straits Times, I am disappointed and appalled by Mr Ho’s attempt to manipulate and confuse public thinking on climate change and the urgent actions needed, based on misleading claims and references in his article. This is a serious dent in this most widely-read national newspaper’s reputation, neutrality and journalistic integrity.

Mr Ho suggested that Singapore should be slow to sign up to any emissions cap, and attempted to show that the scientific evidence on man-made global warming is not clear-cut and that an emissions cap is not supported and is costly. I would like to refute the following eight points in his article:

1. Singapore should be slow to sign up to any emissions cap

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew spoke at the Singapore Energy Lecture last year and discussed about Singapore’s green efforts over the years and the need to maintain the efforts because:

The point is, if we don’t do this, we lose our status as a clean, green city and we’ll lose our business and lose our extra premium for being an unusual city.

Singapore is beginning to lose that extra green premium in the coming low-carbon world. Asian countries like Japan, South Korea and even China are taking proactive steps to become a low-carbon economy, to sign up to emissions cap, and to be recognised as green leaders. It is no longer enough just to be “clean and green” in this new carbon-constrained world.

Singapore has to fundamentally and holistically look at its economy and consider whether a business-as-usual economic development is possible and competitive. In the light of climate change, a real green country has to take the lead in setting emissions targets and reducing its emissions, ensuring energy and food security and sufficiency, and creating a green economy and green jobs.

Climate change represents crisis and also opportunities. There are great and challenging opportunities to make the change now and lessen future impacts and costs of climate change. The cost of taking action on climate change is high but the cost of not taking action is even higher. The Stern Review published in 2007 concluded that the earlier effective action is taken, the less costly it will be.

2. The consensus support of 2,500 scientists in the IPCC is not true

The IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4) released in 2007 is a collaborative effort supported by the many Working Groups, authors and reviewers to show a consensus on man-made global warming and the need to take urgent actions based on climate sciences and observed changes in the climate.

The 2,500 scientists referred to by Mr Ho are the scientific expert reviewers involved in the scientific and technical review process of the AR4. The review process is described below
(http://www.ipcc.ch/press_information/press_information_fact_sheet1.htm):

IPCC reports are written by teams of authors, nominated by governments and international organizations. They come from universities, research centres, business and environmental associations from all over the world. More than 800 contributing authors and more than 450 lead authors were involved in the writing of the AR4.

Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. More than 2.500 scientific expert reviewers were involved in the two-stage scientific and technical review process of the AR4.

For the first review, the drafts are circulated to specialists with significant expertise and publications in the field. A wide circulation process ensures contributions from independent experts in all regions of the world and all relevant disciplines. Revised drafts are distributed for the second review to governments and to all authors and expert reviewers. Governments and expert reviewers can provide comments on the accuracy and completeness of the scientific/technical/socio-economic content and the overall balance of the drafts. Differing views for which there is significant scientific or technical support are clearly reflected in the final documents.

As reviewers, the 2,500 scientists’ work is to provide comments and feedback on parts of the report text so as to make the report better and more accurate. In any review process, not all the comments are accepted into the final text. So it is no surprise that the “number actually includes those who disagreed with parts of it but had no say in the final text”. What is important is that there is a process of explaining why the comments are rejected. All the IPCC reviewers’ comments and responses to their comments are available for public viewing at http://hcl.harvard.edu/collections/ipcc/.

3. Climate science is not an exact one yet as shown through a petition by scientists

Mr Ho mentioned the 9,029 scientists who reject man-made global warming at www.petitionproject.org. In fact, the actual number is 31,478 American scientists, of which 9,029 have PhDs. The petition (also known as the Oregon Petition) started in 1998 and was circulated in the US (together with a 12-page review paper) among those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines.

The petition is questionable. First, it is too easy for anyone with a degree to just sign the petition without proper credentials and understanding of climate sciences. Two, the signatories might have signed the petition before reading the latest information on climate change by the IPCC and other national science academics. Three, it was widely reported that the review paper, the people and organisations behind the petition are not credible.

(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2;

http://debunking.pbworks.com/Oregon-Petition)

It is laughable to say that climate science is not exact by quoting a petition of 9,029 American PhD holders. Scientists do not only exist in the US. There are many scientists in other countries that support man-made global warming as represented by the IPCC and national science academies including:

• National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
• Science Council of Japan
• Russian Academy of Sciences
• Australian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
• Brazilian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society of Canada
• Caribbean Academy of Sciences
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• French Academy of Sciences
• German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
• Indian National Science Academy
• Indonesian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Irish Academy
• Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
• Academy of Sciences Malaysia
• Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society (UK)

4. Climate change debate is often heated as shown by the public challenge issued by Christopher Monckton to Al Gore

Christopher Monckton is widely reported to have a dubious reputation and is not being taken seriously. He is not trained in climate sciences although he has published several articles and papers to debunk man-made global warming, which are not peer-reviewed and contain dodgy claims and misleading errors.

(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/;

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray/;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley)

It is up to Al Gore to choose whether to response to Christopher Monckton, and if Al Gore did not reply, it does not mean that Christopher Monckton is then right. Besides, the definition of “debate” refers to a serious discussion of a subject in which many people take part (according to the Cambridge Dictionary). Public challenges issued by a dodgy person do not represent a debate, let alone a heated climate change debate.

5. Water vapour and clouds could be the cause of climate variations, and not human activities

The debate on water vapour and clouds boils down to whether water vapour is considered as feedback or radiative forcing. According to the IPCC, radiative forcing is “a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism” whereas “feedbacks can amplify or dampen the response to a given forcing”. In other words, forcings are processes that can force changes in our climate, and feedbacks are indirect or secondary changes in our climate in response to forcings.

Mr Ho referred to Dr Roy Spencer, who argues that water vapour is significant as a forcing. On the other, the IPCC AR4 treats water vapour as feedback in climate models but also acknowledges the importance of water vapour:

Direct emission of water vapour (a greenhouse gas) by human activities makes a negligible contribution to radiative forcing. However, as global average temperature increases, tropospheric water vapour concentrations increase and this represents a key positive feedback but not a forcing of climate change. Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting equilibrium climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty.

There are of course questions on climate science including the role of water vapour and clouds. There are also no perfect climate models. However, the existence of these questions and imperfection does not mean that there is no consensus on man-made climate change. The study on climate change is not just based on climate models but also on climate sciences and observed data.

6. Global emissions reduction is costly as it will cost at least US$100 billion a year

To give a comparison of how costly is US$100 billion, consider the following: The world GDP in 2007 is US$54,891 billion; the world military expenditure is US$1,464 billion in 2008; and the world advertising expenditure is US$455 billion in 2007.

We are not short of money to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are just spending them in the wrong areas and lacking the political willpower and foresight to spend them wisely. Surely, spending about 0.2% of global GDP yearly to mitigate climate change is not asking too much. Furthermore, the earlier effective action is taken, the less costly it will be, as concluded by the Stern Review.

7. The majority of the world’s population do not share the values and attitudes on combating global warming

Mr Ho tried to show that the citation: “’Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role’ in combating global warming” and that “Mr Obama would ‘do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population’” is false because most people in the G77, including China and India, do not share the values and attitudes on combating global warming as they would not agree to reduce their use of fossil fuels.

This is wrong on two counts. First, the Nobel Peace Prize’s nominating committee’s citation did not imply that the USA is now playing a more constructive role in combating global warming on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population. The two sentences by Mr Ho are taken out of context and placed together to form that impression. The actual text of the Nobel Peace Prize’s press release is shown below (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html):

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

Second, it is not true that China and India “would not agree to reducing their use of fossil fuels” or take action on climate change. In fact, China’s president, Hu Jintao, in his recent speech on climate change at the United Nations General Assembly, has already committed to the following (http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/3259): “We will endeavour to cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by a notable margin by 2020 from the 2005 level.” and “We will endeavour to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15% by 2020.”

India has also highlighted efforts in its National Action Plan on Climate Change to “significantly increase the share of solar energy in the total energy mix while recognizing the need to expand the scope of other renewable and non-fossil options such as nuclear energy, wind energy and biomass” and “is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries even as we pursue our development objectives.” (http://pmindia.nic.in/climate_change.htm)

8. There is a decline in the proportion of the US public believing that human activities cause global warming as shown by the Pew Research Centre poll

The Pew Research Centre poll also shows a sharp decline in the proportion of the public saying that there is “solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades”. In a follow-up article, the Pew Research Centre suggested some reasons for the sharp declines, including “a sour economy and, perhaps, a cooler than normal summer in parts of the United States”. They explained that:

Pew Research surveys show that as economic concerns have surged, fewer people view the environment as a top policy priority. In our annual survey on the public’s policy agenda, just 41% rated protecting the environment as a top priority; just a year earlier, 56% rated it as a top priority. Yet other issues also were overshadowed as more people focused on the economy and jobs. There were sharp declines as well in the proportions rating dealing with illegal immigration (down 10 points), reducing health care costs (10 points) and reducing crime (eight points) as top priorities for the president and Congress.

This could suggest that the public thinking on whether the earth is getting warmer or whether it is human activities causing global warming has been distorted and influenced by the economic downturn, leading to sharp declines in the poll.

Similar Posts

• What if we do not presume that global warming is happening?
• Book: The Hot Topic by Gabrielle Walker and Sir David King
• Gallup Polls on Public Awareness of Global Warming
• Climate Change in Singapore
• Launch of Low Carbon Singapore