The idea that natural variability in solar activity is the primary cause of current climate change change has never stood up to the scrutiny of the scientific peer-review process.

Credit: iStockphoto

Related articles

• Factfile: The evidence for climate change
• Climate reporting "too balanced" say scientists
• Sun in the clear over global warming
• Climate change can be slowed, says U.N.
• Global warming is our fault

From beyond the unintelligible diatribe, came a voice of reason: "Rome is burning and we are fiddling around trying to make sense of it all".

It was the final comment from the studio audience in the debate following the 12 July 2007 screening on Australia's ABC TV of the deeply flawed British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. Finally, here was someone who cared less about the fine details of the science, and more about the government policies needed to address climate change. His comment cut to the core of this often baffling debate.

Squabbling within the scientific community is a fact of life – it is the hallmark of rigorous science. But it begs the question: is it really necessary that every cabbie in downtown Dunedoo is up on the latest in Earth simulation models before we act on climate change?

While it is great that there is increased public awareness about the serious threats posed by global warming, we should leave the technical debates to the experts. While some people may argue this is elitist or paternalistic, to others it is purely common sense.

Overwhelming evidence

When a medical expert diagnoses us with a disease, do we distrust them and then proceed to attempt to decipher the intricacies of human physiology? We must remember it has taken climatologists years – if not decades – to understand the complexity of the nature and causes of climate change. Discussing specialist detail in the public domain is likely to make people feel that it's all 'too hard' or 'beyond them'. The result? People switch off.

Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle premiered on Britain's Channel 4 in March to a torrent of criticism from the scientific community. The film audaciously tried to argue against the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, which indicates 20^th century global warming is largely due to increases in greenhouse gases from human activity. It is the consensus view contained in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Assessment Report developed by 2,500 scientists from 120 countries – one of the most heavily reviewed reports in history.

The central tenet of the documentary – that natural variability caused by solar and volcanic activity is the primary cause of recent changes to global temperatures – has never stood up to the scrutiny of the scientific peer-review process. The IPCC has reported that variation in global average temperature since the Industrial Revolution can only be reproduced by models that take into account both natural and human factors.

There is little, if any, relationship between the solar cycle and recent increase to global temperatures. Being generous, solar variations account for 5 per cent of the observed warming of the globe since the dawn of the industrial era. Similarly, CO₂ emissions from volcanoes are less than 2 per cent of the annual CO₂ emissions generated by human fossil fuel use.

Misleading and misguided

By giving a consensus opinion and an extremely radical point of view equal weighting, an illusion of controversy about the science is created when in reality there is none.

Shouldn't we trust that our scientists are kept in check by the professional peer-review process, rather than a documentary filmmaker notorious for claiming that breast implants improve women's health? It's a spectacular example of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing.

At best, this film is a misleading and misguided polemic. At worst, it is a blatant propaganda piece based on pseudoscience. The Great Global Warming Swindle misrepresents the current state of knowledge in climate science in order to confuse public opinion, distracting us from the real issue of seriously debating risk management in our increasingly warming world. The main take home message of the IPCC reports is that the technology needed to prevent serious warming is here with us today. What we do right now will determine whether the warming we face is small or big. That choice is ours.

In these early years of the 21^st century, we're looking at a renewable energy revolution that's as huge as the one that took us from the days of horse-drawn carriages and gas lamps, to the era of cars and incandescent light globes. According to the Australian Conservation Foundation, the amount of solar energy that hits Australia in one summer day alone is equivalent to 50 per cent of the energy the whole world uses in six months. Yet despite this enormous potential, less than 5 per cent of Australia's total energy consumption comes from renewable resources like solar power.

Resistant to change

Currently, the Australian government's stance on climate change is fixated on negativity and a resistance to change. They select economic modeling that exaggerates the loss of competitiveness of traditional fossil fuels, creating a sense of paralysis. In reality, moving towards a low-carbon economy represents the greatest business opportunity we have ever seen. It has the potential to create enormous economic opportunities and help us to achieve environmental sustainability.

Meanwhile, CO₂ concentrations, global temperatures and sea level rise are already near or above the 'worst case scenarios' projections of the IPCC. Timing is therefore crucial for both for the planet and business opportunities. There is no longer time to indulge distractions by manipulative, junk science documentaries based on faulty scientific analysis advancing a 'business as usual' political agenda. Denial and inaction are no longer justifiable. The real science of climate change is out there.

Readers' comments