Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant or accept liability for the accuracy or usefulness of the transcripts. These are copied directly from the broadcaster's website.
Journalist puts global warming sceptics under -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

Journalist puts global warming sceptics under the spotlight

Reporter: Tony Jones

TONY JONES: Now to our guest. Author and journalist Ross Gelbspan has taken on the global-warming
sceptics in a series of books and articles. His latest book is called The Heat Is On: The Climate
Crisis, The Cover-Up and The Prescription. I spoke to him just a short time ago in Boston.

TONY JONES: Ross Gelbspan, thank you for joining us.

ROSS GELBSPAN: My pleasure, Tony. Thank you for having me on.

TONY JONES: Now, no matter how many scientists or governments sign up to the idea that the planet
is getting dangerously hotter, you still find there's a hard core of committed sceptics, many of
them reputable scientists like Professor Richard Lindzen from MIT. Can I ask you first: what if
they're right?

ROSS GELBSPAN: If they're right and catastrophic future, then we still, I think, would be doing the
right thing by changing away from coal and oil to clean energy. That would clear the air, it would
do away with a lot of lung diseases, it would create lots and lots of jobs, especially in
developing countries, so I really see it as a no-lose situation. If they're right, we are still
going to run out of oil in another 40, 50 years, the world will be, and we'll still need to make
this transition, albeit without the same amount of urgency.

TONY JONES: The sceptics try to make the point that global warming is nothing but a theory. I mean,
can you counter that? Is it more than a theory now, at this point?

ROSS GELBSPAN: Well, first of all, step back for one second, and what we know about the climate
comes from more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries, reporting to the UN in what is the
largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history. This is about as
close to truth as we can get. If you want to go beyond the science and look at the very visible
impacts, we can see that we are heating the deep oceans, we have reversed the carbon cycle by
400,000 years, we're seeing a big increase of violent weather all over the world, we've altered the
timing of the seasons. All over the world, fish, insects birds, plants and animals are migrating
toward the poles in search of temperature stability. So if you put together all the evidence, the
scientific evidence, the field evidence, it really seems like a very open-and-shut case.

TONY JONES: Why, then, are the sceptics so passionate about the arguments they're putting forward,
and they are putting them forward with incredible passion. Richard Lindzen, who we just mentioned,
for example, compares global warming to eugenics as an abuse of science.

ROSS GELBSPAN: Well, Mr Lindzen does, but Mr Lindzen is really sort of out there on a limb. I don't
know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. Dr Lindzen
himself, his research is publicly funded, but Dr Lindzen makes, as he told me, $2,500 a day
consulting with fossil fuel interests, and that includes his consulting with OPEC, his consulting
with the Australian coal industry, his consulting with the US coal industry and so forth. That's
not to say Dr Lindzen doesn't believe what he says, but it is to say that he stands in very sharp
distinction to really just about virtually all of the climate scientists around the world.

TONY JONES: Is it also becoming a little hip to be sceptical? I mean, we've now seen Lindzen's
influence creeping into popular culture. We have, for example, Michael Crichton's new novel, State
of Fear, in which the hero is a global warming sceptic who roams the world for a secret US agency
defeating evil environmentalists. I mean, this is so turning on its head the kind of popular
mythology that we've seen in the past that you wonder where it's coming from.

ROSS GELBSPAN: You do. I think Dr Lindzen, with whom I've met, has just a streak of contrarianism
in his personality, and it could be that Michael Crichton does, too. I don't know Michael Crichton.
I do know that the science that's advanced in Michael Crichton's book is really bogus and it simply
does not hold up to examination at all. There's a very good web site that a number of climate
scientists put together called to show where all the flaws in Crichton's thinking

TONY JONES: One of the things the sceptics have in common is an incredible passion, it seems to me,
and they seem to match the passion of some environmentalists. Recently we had on our program
President Putin's reputed economic adviser, Andre Illarionov, who claims that global warming
science is nothing but propaganda and the scientists who put it forward are a dangerous
totalitarian sect. Now, how influential are people like Illarionov?

ROSS GELBSPAN: I gather he's not that influential, even in Russia, because President Putin did sign
on to the Kyoto protocol. I know he is a darling of the right-wing institutes like the Kato
Institute and others in the United States that are fighting against action on global warming. But
in the big picture, I really don't see them having very much influence on what's going on,
especially with the world having signed Kyoto and moved forward. Again, to put this in context, if
I can, while the US is dragging its heels because the Bush administration is certainly lined up
with coal and oil interests, look at what's happening in Europe. Holland has just finished a plan
to cut her emissions by 80 per cent in 40 years; Tony Blair has committed the UK to cuts of 60 per
cent in 50 years; the Germans have committed to cuts of 50 per cent in 50 years; and about two
weeks ago, President Chirac of France called on the industrial world to cut their emissions by 75
per cent in 45 years, and clearly, these leaders would not be taking these wrenching policy
pronouncements if they did not - if they had any real confusion about the science.

TONY JONES: Whose advice, then, is the Bush White House taking on major scientific issues like
this, and in particular on global warming? What is the US Academy of Sciences saying, for example,
and do they have any influence in the White House?

ROSS GELBSPAN: The National Academy of Sciences, it's very interesting. Several years ago,
President Bush said he did not want to accept the findings of this intergovernmental panel because
it represented foreign science, so he wanted the United States' own scientific body to weigh in.
The National Academy of Sciences then came out with a report saying not only is the IPCC right,
they're actually underestimating some of the impacts that we'll be feeling down the road. So
clearly, the President did not take that advice. The President's policies on climate and energy are
essentially being dictated by Exxon-Mobil, Peabody Coal and some of the other large coal and oil
interests. For example, the previous head of the intergovernmental panel on climate change was Dr
Robert Watson. He was an Australian-born scientist. Watson was very, very highly regarded, both for
his own scientific expertise and the way he ran this whole IPCC, and when President Bush was
elected, Exxon-Mobil sent him a memo saying, "Please get rid of Watson. We don't want Watson in
there." In fact, President Bush decided not to support Watson's re-election and he got bumped out
of that job. So that's a quick example of the kind of influence that we're seeing of the oil and
coal industries in the Bush administration.

TONY JONES: What do you make of the argument that's going on within the environmental movement that
the situation is so pressing, we are so close to a tipping point, that the only way of actually
saving the planet is to move quickly to nuclear energy on a large scale?

ROSS GELBSPAN: Nuclear waste, as you know, needs to be protected for at least 10,000 years, and
that is a promise we cannot in good conscience make to future generations. There is no known way of
really storing nuclear waste. And in fact, there is not very many people in the environmental
community who are promoting this. But I think it's important, Tony, to go back to one thing you
said. This sense of urgency is not coming first from the environmental community; it is coming from
the scientific community, and Dr Rajendra Pachauri, an energy expert who is head of the
intergovernmental panel said recently we have a 10-year window in which to make severe cuts in our
carbon uses if "humanity is to survive". That science is based on a very simple fact. It's based on
the measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For 10,000 years we had the same amount, 280
parts per million, until the world began to industrialise about 150 years ago. That 280 is now up
to 380. That is a level this planet has not experienced for 420,000 years. In another 10 to 20
years, at current rates of emissions, we will surpass the 400 part per million mark, and that for
many scientists is a real point of no return, because that will raise the planet's temperature by
two degrees celsius from pre-industrial levels and that is the temperature at which all kinds of
planetary systems really begin to change and sort of spiral out of control until they snap into a
new equilibrium. So we are a very small distance away from really seeing things, sort of, get out
of control in ways we can't even predict.

TONY JONES: Just to once again look at the sceptics' argument, just to get your impression of it,
Illarionov's central argument is that the present period of global warming - he admits there is a
period global warming - is nothing more, he claim, than a normal fluctuation as we've seen
throughout the world's history, and this is a view put by sceptical geographers, if you like.

ROSS GELBSPAN: That's true, and that is indeed a central question. And in 1998 - I'm sorry, in
1988, the United Nations set up this panel of scientists to address precisely that question. The UN
said, "Look, the temperature's going up, we don't know if this is due to natural variations or
whether this is due to human activities." The scientists worked very hard, they performed a number
of experiments by which they distinguished greenhouse warming from our burning of fossil fuels from
natural warming, and they concluded in 1995 that this was due to human activity and those findings
have only become more strengthened and I won't bore you with a lot of the science but I'd love to
give you one quick experiment that's very, very telling and that's this: that climate scientists
have discovered that as earth's temperature is rising, the night-time low temperatures are rising
twice as fast as the day-time high temperature. That's because the carbon dioxide and the other
greenhouses gases are trapping the heat in overnight. That is an indisputable fact. If it were
natural warming, the highs and lows would rise and fall in parallel. I think there's a rather
tragic consequence of that finding, and we saw that in the summer before last, where we had 35,000
heat deaths in Europe, and I think the reason for those fatalities lies in the fact that when a
person's body becomes heat stressed during the day-time and they don't get the normal night-time
cooling to allow them to recuperate, it takes this terrible toll on people's bodies. So that
night-time low finding is one of about 8 or 9 what are so-called signature experiments that have
distinguished greenhouse warming from natural variability.

TONY JONES: Let me can you one final question and it is a critical one, because once again, it's
something the sceptics claim doesn't really exist. And that is: scientific consensus on this issue
of global warming. How do you measure scientific consensus?

ROSS GELBSPAN: Well, I think the issue of peer review is critical. And if you look at all the
peer-reviewed work of people who are researching various aspects of the climate, there is virtually
no research that has been peer reviewed that says this is not happening. And so there is a very
strong consensus, and as I say, this IPCC looks at the work of more than 2,000 scientists from 100
countries, and they conclude that there is really no challenge to the larger trends. There are
disputes about a lot of second-level questions. There are disputes about the rates of future
warming, about specific impacts in geographical regions, about the role of clouds, for example,
some clouds reflect heat, some clouds trap in heat, but in terms of the larger trends, there is a
consensus, there is no dispute among any real credentialed scientists about what is happening and
even Dr Lindzen acknowledges it's happening. He just sort of dismisses it as being negligible.

TONY JONES: Well, Ross Gelbspan, we do thank you very much for coming in on a very cold Boston
morning and taking the time to join us on Lateline. Thank you very much.