Climate inaction, the one point of consensus

Bjorn Lomborg. Photo: Ben Rushton

Two climate contrarians have made headlines, and they bring two very different styles to the climate debate.

The Prime Minister’s business adviser, Maurice Newman, is an old-school climate crank. While scientists from many nations have measured warming across the globe, and found it is caused by carbon dioxide, Newman sincerely believes “weather bureaus appear to have homogenised data to suit narratives.” Newman rejects the work of hundreds of scientists, and instead embraces conspiracy theories.

`Lomborg consistently misinterprets and makes selective use of scientific studies, to portray an overly optimistic view of climate change and its costs.’

Danish professor Bjorn Lomborg​ was to head an “Australian Consensus Centre” at the University of Western Australia, kickstarted with $4 million of federal government funding. However, UWA has withdrawn its offer to host the centre, as it has been incredibly divisive and controversial within UWA and beyond.

An “Australian Consensus Centre”, kickstarted with $4 million of federal government funding, has been divisive and controversial.

Unlike Newman, Lomborg accepts carbon dioxide is raising global temperatures. However, what unites these two men is they consistently argue against action on climate change. They also have support from the political right, with Lomborg being a favourite of Australian conservatives and American Republicans.

Newman makes selective use of facts to make his arguments. For example, in his most recent opinion piece, Newman correctly states that December 2010 was the coldest December in Britain on record. However, there are colder months in the British temperature record and December 2010 is an exception to a warming trend, which resulted in 2014 being Britain’s hottest year.   Britain and the Earth are warming.

Newman’s errors and omissions, combined with his more conspiratorial claims, make him easy to dismiss. Lomborg’s climate contrarianism is more nuanced and polished.

Hilarious: the UN’s climate chief called Maurice Newman’s comments ‘a joke’. Photo: Nic Walker

Lomborg has run the Copenhagen Consensus Centre in both Denmark and the US. Consensus implies that conclusions are reached via broad agreement within the relevant community. However, the Copenhagen consensus project draws upon a relatively narrow pool of economists. Many prominent economists are highly critical of the consensus centre. In particular, its design includes unrealistic policy trade-offs and economic assumptions that, by design, lead to conclusions against immediate action on climate change.

Even participants in the Copenhagen consensus project have been highly critical of Lomborg. While Lomborg claims global warming could have benefits, participant Gary Yohe stated bluntly that, “this is a deliberate distortion of our conclusions.” Most economic models indicate that global warming comes with significant economic costs, particularly if warming exceeds 2 degrees.

In addition to consensus being elusive, the Copenhagen Consensus Centre itself has been elusive. The centre has not been based in Copenhagen since 2011, and its US postal address is a mail forwarding service. Despite this, the centre has received significant funding from politically conservative foundations and Lomborg appeared at an event sponsored by coal giant Peabody Energy before the Brisbane G20 meeting.

Lomborg does acknowledge that carbon dioxide emissions are leading to increased global temperatures, which is an improvement on Maurice Newman’s denial. However, Lomborg often downplays the risks of climate change and (like Newman) selectively uses facts.

For example, multiple research groups have found that sea level rise accelerated over the past century, and just 10 centimetres of sea level rise will triple the rate of coastal inundation events around Australia. Despite this, Lomborg recently claimed in the Wall Street Journal that sea level rise could be decelerating. However, the two studies cited by Lomborg use too little data to make meaningful claims on the acceleration or deceleration of sea level rise. Lomborg says he is opposed to alarmists, but his optimistic and selective use of the scientific studies indicates he is actually railing against mainstream science.

Lomborg’s Consensus Centre at UWA has been controversial, and many have welcomed the announcement that UWA will not be the centre’s host. While some political warriors are claiming this is a defeat for academic freedom, this is unjustified and overlooks Lomborg’s history.

Lomborg consistently misinterprets and makes selective use of scientific studies, to portray an overly optimistic view of climate change and its costs. The Copenhagen Consensus Centre process includes unrealistic assumptions that, by design, lead to arguments against immediate action on climate change. Lomborg’s approach lacks the academic rigour we expect from our top universities. Despite this, Lomborg is an effective lobbyist and popular with some politicians, so he will continue to have a significant media profile, even without the Australian Consensus Centre.

Like old school climate contrarians, including Newman, Lomborg consistently argues against acting on climate change now. In a time of tight government spending, one has to wonder if federal dollars for Lomborg’s Australian Consensus Centre were intended to fund rigorous academic activity, or provide intellectual cover for the government’s inadequate climate change policies.

Associate Professor Michael Brown is an astronomer at Monash University’s School of Physics & Astronomy.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/climate-inaction-the-one-point-of-consensus-20150513-gh0d5z.html