There is still reason to doubt ‘settled’ climate science

Climate advocates all too often treat skeptics of the climate orthodoxy — that human use of fossil fuels is causing rising temperatures and extreme weather events — as tools of the fossil fuel industry or as people to be patronized because they are blind to a serious risk. 

Recently, a representative of the Citizens Climate Lobby wrote that questions about climate change come “straight out of websites paid for fossil fuel interests.” He also said, “We must look closely at where the alternative facts on climate change are coming from and who is paying for their manufacture.”

{mosads}As someone who spent a career in the petroleum industry, I want to answer that question. Using rhetorical gimmicks to dismiss reasonable doubts may be clever but it is not informative. There are many sources of climate information that have nothing to do with special interests.

The National Academy of Sciences has issued a number of reports on climate change. The summary of a report that accepted predictions from climate models, included the following caveat, “Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward.)” 

The last assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) still lists a number of factors for which our state of knowledge is limited. Hence, there are legitimate reasons for questioning advocates certitude. These uncertainties include clouds, land use albedo and solar irradiance. 

The IPCC’s comments on oceans also reflect the uncertainty resulting from the inaccuracy of historical measuring techniques due to a lack of precision. The Global Ocean Observation System which provides accurate measurements has only been operational for a relatively short period of time, less than 20 years. 

More important, when it comes to climate sensitivity-the temperature effect of doubling CO2 — the IPCC most recent estimate is between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. The fact that this estimate varies by a factor of 3 demonstrates the extent of uncertainty and why reasonable people can disagree over advocates certitude and the extent of human influence. 

Having just been through an active hurricane season, many climate advocates claim that it was evidence of climate change becoming worse, with humans being the cause. However, NOAA in October stated, “It is premature to conclude that human activities – and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming – have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.” 

None of these comments are made to lessen legitimate concern about climate change or deny any human influence. They are made for two reasons. First, to demonstrate that certitude about human influence and its effects is misplaced. Excessive certitude can lead to corrective actions that waste resources without achieving the desired effect. 

Second, reasonable people can disagree over the extent of human impact on the climate system without those expressing skepticism being tools of the fossil fuel industry, indifferent to the environment, or dolts. 

Climate change does have impacts, some but not all of which are damaging. As a society, we will be able to deal with those changes more effectively if we cease attacks and focus on narrowing our differences so that we can support actions that have a high probability of making a difference.

William O’Keefe is the founder and president of Solutions Consulting. He formerly served as CEO of the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit that conducted technical assessments of scientific issues with an impact on public policy before closing in 2015.