Climate science, scepticism and cynicism – we need better language

I must start with confession. I happen to think that climate change is happening and that its primary cause is the anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases. I have reached this conclusion as a lay person (not my field) who has made a reasonable effort to be as informed about this issue as I can. I have considered the evidence, and the theory. I find it compelling that after years of humanity emitting CO₂ in huge quantity, atmospheric concentration of CO₂ has increased dramatically. Coincidence? I think not.

I am equally compelled by the observation that CO₂ absorbs heat and that more of it in the atmosphere should mean more heat retained by the world – a hotter climate. When scientists present evidence of a changing climate I greet this with a degree of credulity because it fits with well established, well argued and, above all well evidenced theory. I am not alone in this...

Now for a second confession - I would also describe myself as a climate sceptic. I say this because I think, despite any warm reception I might give it, I fundamentally believe that all evidence should be interrogated and verified. Furthermore, in the case of climate science, there are clearly uncertainties in terms of how climate will change in response to increasing heat being retained by the atmosphere, how quickly and at what cost.

Professor Beddington, the Government’s Chief Scientist, recently attacked climate sceptics for making unreasonable claims. More recently, Lord Rees – President of the Royal Society and Astronomer Royal – described science as organised scepticism during his first Reith Lecture. Of course, they are both right and agree with each other. The trouble is, their argument is let down by their choice of language.

So I would like to propose we try a new language. One could argue there is a fine line between scepticism and cynicism, but the connotations are clear. Foul play in football is cynical. Honestly questioning the evidence for homeopathy, say, is sceptical. There is a big difference and only one is dishonest. People who honestly scrutinise the evidence behind climate science, and the projections scientists make about the future of the climate, should be called climate sceptics. I, for one, would see that as a compliment.

A new term, climate cynics, should be reserved for people who wilfully distort evidence, seek controversy for its own sake and undermine public trust in mitigation measures on behalf of their big-oil paymasters. These people will tell you it is also getting hotter on Neptune so it must be the Sun and not us. What they don’t tell you is that Neptune’s year is 164 Earth years and its Southern Hemisphere is heading into summer... might it be getting hotter on Neptune? Cynical is the right word.

So, now we have that sorted I’d like to recommend a great iPhone app – Skeptical Science. It’s a lot better than a first reading of Beddington’s comments might lead you to think.