Opinion
A consensus too far?
It would be blinkered to deny that climate change is
happening, but are we really looking in the right places for
the cause? Perhaps it’s time to re-evaluate, argues Nick Cullen
I
would like to believe that climate change is not principles of using resources more effi ciently and
happening, but the evidence is overwhelming. minimising waste are fundamentally sound, both
Melting glaciers, rising sea levels and increasing environmentally and economically. But as the easy
desertifi cation highlight the global nature of climate wins are exhausted the costs of all this activity will
change. The question that is rarely debated in the mass mount. At some point in the not too distant future,
media is whether mankind is the cause of climate as the UK heads towards the new 80 per cent
change, but this lack of debate does not mean that the greenhouse gas reduction target, we will be faced
arguments are non-existent. One such argument is with diffi cult decisions.We have seen the dangers
that the famous ‘hockey stick’ 1,000-year temperature of political consensus in the origins of the current
profi le is incorrect. The argument goes that if the data economic mire, where sceptical voices were ignored
are analysed differently they show a warmer period in by the politicians, regulators and the regulated.
the Middle Ages, suggesting the warming experienced I haven’t become a ‘climate change sceptic’, but I
in the 20th century is part of a natural cycle. A US do fi nd myself naturally inclined towards supporting
Congressional hearing reviewed the evidence and cast t h e u n d e r d o g t a k i n g o n a
further doubt upon this evidence. climate change establishment
A second argument is that there is no evidence that appears unwilling to
Consensus
to suggest that the small increase in concentration listen to criticism. For the
(0.027 to 0.038 per cent) of a trace atmospheric gas, time being the additional on an issue
CO2, is causing climate change. Indeed it is claimed cost of mitigation will provide
of such signifi cance as
that the evidence suggests that the CO2 lags rather the UK with benefits and
than leads temperature. A third argument is that the is probably worth the cost climate change is in itself
science of climate is still in its infancy and we have irrespective of the climate
fundamentally dangerous
yet to fully understand the natural, chaotic and often change argument.
periodic mechanisms. Add to this the reliance upon A shift in thinking towards and should set
predictive modelling, and it is hard to understand adaptation and our future
alarm bells ringing
why the consensus of scientists is to accept energy needs and security is
anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming. however long overdue. To date
So imagine for a minute that mankind isn’t the the UK has justifi ably pursued a
cause of climate change and that what we observe is precautionary approach to climate change. This buys a
primarily the result of a natural planetary cycle. Is short amount of time to enable the scientifi c community
all the effort we have already invested, and are still to better understand climate science and to provide more
investing, in mitigation, a colossal and expensive conclusive evidence of the link between mankind and
mistake? My answer is no, not yet. our climate, rather than simply gathering evidence of the
Consider what the UK has done to reduce carbon link between mankind and our climate, rather than
emissions over the past 20 years. The dash for gas, simply gathering evidence of climate change itself.
the Climate Change Levy and Climate Change The debate must include all sides of the argument
Agreements, and tighter building regulation, have and be more open to public scrutiny.
resulted in a steep and sustained fall in carbon Consensus on an issue of such signifi cance is in
emissions that has been economically benefi cial. itself fundamentally dangerous and should set alarm
To date the costs of the policies introduced by bells ringing. ●
government have been relatively minor and
have many beneficial features, aside from their
Nick Cullen, FCIBSE, is research and development partner
at Hoare Lea Consulting Engineering
intended impact upon carbon emissions. The
20 CIBSE Journal March 2009 www.cibsejournal.com
CIBSEmar09 pp20 opinion Cullen.indd 24 6/3/09 14:14:44
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76