The world’s climate is changing. Of this there can be no doubt. The key question is whether this increasingly dramatic shift is happening entirely because of man-made activities or is, by and large, part and parcel of a meteorological cycle that has always been happening. There is an argument that pollution created by human activities has contributed to climate change. But the concept that the seemingly radical changes to our weather are entirely due to the effusion of “greenhouse” gases is surely wrong.
It is perhaps evidence of the dubiousness of this analysis that it is being championed by a sixteen year-old Swedish girl, Greta Thunberg who held the UN climate change summit in thrall as she blasted politicians for their failure to act to reverse the phenomenon. Ms. Thunberg is an impressive young lady, charismatic and highly articulate. Her publicity points out that she has Asperger, a milder form of autism, as well as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and “selective mutism”, a condition which is explained as meaning that through shyness and social anxiety, she will not speak in certain company.
Despite this, or perhaps, given the insistent inclusivity of the current liberal consensus, because of this, Ms. Thunberg has become a leading light for the environmentalist movement. Belying her demure, adolescent looks, she has mastered straight talking. Though rarely engaged in debate with anyone holding opposite views, she is celebrated for delivering dire warnings of environmental disaster in a punchy and effective manner. But this week at the UN climate summit, the girl delivered an angry and highly emotional address in which she lambasted the world’s leaders for what she characterized as their failure to pay for radical environmentalist proposals to halt and then reduce the output of “greenhouse gases”. As her eyes filled with tears, she thundered at international politicians: “Shame on you!”
As theater, it was an outstanding moment, one that will doubtless be treasured by the millions who believe the planet is dying through man-made pollution. However, as a realistic assessment of what is really happening, it left a great deal to be desired. It epitomized the key problem with climate change science. This is that the few researchers who question the evidence are excoriated as “deniers”. This is an insult to serious research and entirely inimical to the whole scientific process. Good science arises from a constant review of established findings. No scientific belief can suffer if it is challenged. Indeed, if it can answer the questions raised against it, then that particular piece of science becomes the stronger. But it is in the nature of scientific inquiry, that no finding can ever be seen as absolutely final.
Unfortunately, the forceful Ms. Thunberg has become the figurehead of a highly emotional and therefore, by definition, unscientific global view. She is the leader of a movement among schoolchildren around the world who, though they can only be informed by their teachers and the roar of social media posts, are bunking off school to protest about climate change.
Their vigor and dedication is admirable. All young people feel strongly about some ideal or other. But the idea that any one of them, including the highly-articulate Ms. Thunberg, should be elevated to be a prime mover in what is a deeply complex scientific issue is absurd.
