Dr Bob's Blog

I find myself compelled to reply once again to Muriel Newman, this time her discussion of the climate change conference promoted by the Heartland Institute held recently in New York that she attended. The Heartland Institute is a right wing Think Tank, and one of the most outspoken critics of the view that global warming caused by human activity. The Institute assembled scientists, economists, journalists and right wing activists from around the world aimed at answering four questions. Each of these questions is a legitimate one to ask in a scientific debate, but it’s unfortunate that much of the scientific debate has been swallowed up by the ideological stance of The Heartland Institute. This ideological position was clearly obvious in Muriel Newman’s article.

The four questions were, first how reliable are the data to document the recent warming trend, second, how much of the modern warming is natural and how much is likely the result of human activities, thirdly, how reliable are the computer models used to forecast future climate conditions, and finally is reducing emissions the best way or the only response to possible climate change?

The scientists who gave papers at the conference questioned the cause of global warming, others even doubted that global warming was taking place. It is likely that many of the scientist who took part are genuine about their scientific position, but given the ideological position of the economists, journalists and right wing political activists it’s not surprising that they all poured scorn on the view that global warming is real and the principle cause is human actions in releasing green house gases into the atmosphere.

It’s important to understand the scientific enterprise. Within any field of science there are always competing theories and those who hold these competing theories are engaged in vigorous debate with one another, and sometimes these debates become very nasty. Before taking a position on which theory to support it’s important to weigh up which theory has the best predictive value of the subject matter with which it deals.

Some theories are better than others at making predictions about the nature of reality. In the case of global warming it’s a case of deciding which theory answers better, the issue of whether global warming is the result of human actions or so called natural causes.  I’ll assume that it is agreed that global warning is occurring and this seems to be the position adopted by Muriel Newman. No theory will last forever, and hard as it may seem there are no facts apart from the theory that explains the “facts”. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than in the case of light. If you use one theory light is a wave, in another theory light is a particle. Both are correct but your findings depend upon the way you measure light.  

I will spell out my position in relation to the competing scientific theories about global warming so that there is no doubt in your minds as to where I am coming from. I will also spell out the reasons upon which my position is based.

I am a social scientist and not a climate scientist so I am not competent to debate the technical details of the different arguments. I have read quite widely in this field, however, and I am convinced that global warming is real and that its principle cause is the result of human activity. I align myself with the Gaia theory developed by James Lovelock that has ten successful predictions about the way in which the global climate is affected by changes in the makeup of the atmosphere.

If you want to follow up on this debate then I suggest that you have a look at www.realclimate.org and http://gristmill.grist.or/skeptics. Both of these websites have useful material that will help you form a view on this very important issue. The Grit site has useful material dealing with all of the issues raised by the skeptics at the New York Heartland conference.

I believe the problem of climate change is serious and that it threatens our civilization. I believe that we need a new lifestyle that values the Earth and all living forms within the Earth. This is the major religious and political question of our time. I am using religion in the sense of an understanding and set of practices that takes account of the big issues of ultimate concern, who are we and what are we here for? We are surely not just rational economic optimizers as the extreme right wing would have you believe.  

Having made my position clear I want to deal with Muriel Newman’s conclusions. She concludes that climate change is caused by natural causes (and she makes this as a claim of irrefutable fact). She claims that climate change is unstoppable and any attempts to try and control it are futile, political and expensive. If this is correct then there is no hope for our civilization.

Muriel Newman also claims that the political solutions to curb green house gases is some sort of fiendish plot to undermine economic growth. It’s uncanny how the extreme political right often tries to demonise their opponents. We might ask what is the point of economic growth if our civilization collapses? This is not an alarmist statement, but the consequences of carrying on as we have been doing is alarming.

It seems as though the Heartland Institute and their supporters believe that as “Rome burns” we should all busily play our business harps as Nero did as Rome burned.

The truth is that stemming green house gases does not mean the end of economic growth, but it does mean the end of economic growth as it is currently practiced. The leadership of many global organisations are forming a consensus view that we cannot continue to exhaust finite resources in a fragile atmosphere, and new ways have to be found involving the re-writing of the way business in being done. Muriel Newman is probably unaware of the major changes being made in every supply chain within the New Zealand economy as you read this article.

Sheep farmers are calling for changes in the way their supply chain operates and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that within the next few years the entire food and fibre chain based around sheep farming will be changed re-writing the rules of operation. I imagine that the whole of the dairy industry under Fonterra’s leadership will be involved in re-writing the rules in the dairy supply chain.

This will also involve a re-writing of the supply chains that serve the rural sector. I know that major changes are being planned and are underway now in many service organisations. It is not going to be business as usual, as much as the extreme right would like. Many of these changes are being prompted by the forces of information technologies and global economic forces, as well as the realization of the threat of global warming. If you want to learn more about these changes read Thomas Friedman’s book, “The World is Flat: The Globalized World in the Twenty-First Century

The Government’s recent announcement to establish a research fund for the agriculture and food supply chains will provide an enormous impetus to New Zealand being a major player in re-writing these supply chains. As these supply chains adapt and change so they will drag the rest of the economy with them.

These changes that we are going to have to confront impose enormous challenges for us all and it’s doubtful if we have the level of awareness and consciousness to deal with the challenges. It is important that we all develop the capacity for greater awareness of these challenges and that we create the social conditions required to integrate the whole of our society in the challenges ahead.