Wednesday 3rd Sept, 7.30 pm at The Bar
A Cool look at Global Warming
Chris Bell is going to lead our September meeting on the what is generally referred to as ‘The Climate Crisis’. Chris begins by saying this about it:
Discussion about Climate Change/Global Warming assumes that the earth’s atmosphere has always had a constant composition until humans came along, that the weather was also some sort of constant, and that the earth’s orbit was an unchanging progress around a sun which always ‘burned’ at an unchanging rate. However none of this is true!
Chris is going to take us back to basics and will challenge many of our assumptions about the planet.
These are the questions that we need to address:
Is the planet really warming and what is the evidence? How far is it hard, scientific fact and how much is interpretation of soft statistics and trends?
If the planet is genuinely warming, is it part of a natural cycle or is some of it, or all of it, caused by human activity?
If the planet is warming, does it matter? Are the consequences likely to be as dire as some predict or is it something we can learn to adapt to and live with?
If it’s as serious as the climate scientists’ consensus claims is there anything to be done about it? Do we have the technology to fix the problem and is the international community able to coordinate itself to effectively address the issue?
Finally, on all sides of the debate there appear to be ideological axes to grind which makes one wonder whether an objective perspective is at all possible. The ideological left seems to take a collectivist approach and wants large-scale strategies led by central government, such as phasing out fossil fuels with a move to renewables. The right tends to see the ‘Greens’ as sentimental ‘tree-huggers’ failing to see the damage that will be done to the economy if we run down traditional industries. Both view the other as wearing ideological blinkers and failing to see reality.
Whoever is right about global warming it is undeniable that coming to a conclusion is a matter of judgement and that risks attend taking it seriously and getting it wrong or dismissing it as fear-mongering and getting that wrong. This is where the ‘Precautionary Principle’ comes in and we have to decide which strategy is the least risky.
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. ~ Rio Declaration, 1992
The scientific consensus on climate change is very strong and is said to be based on decades of research and assessment by major scientific organisations worldwide.
The key points the climate scientists make are:
1. Warming is unequivocal: Earth’s average surface temperature has risen significantly since the late 19th century. The last few decades have been the warmest in modern history.
2. Human activities are the primary cause: The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the dominant driver of recent warming is the increase in greenhouse gases (particularly CO2, CH4, and N2O) from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes.
3. Widespread impacts are already visible: Rising global temperatures are linked to more frequent and intense heatwaves, melting glaciers and ice sheets, sea level rise, shifts in ecosystems, stronger storms, and changing precipitation patterns.
4. Future risks are severe: Without major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, global warming is projected to exceed 1.5–2 °C above pre-industrial levels this century, leading to increasingly dangerous and potentially irreversible consequences for human societies and natural systems.
5. The scientific consensus comes from:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which states with high confidence that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land.
Surveys of climate scientists find that 97–99% agree that humans are causing significant global warming.
National science academies and organisations worldwide (eg, NASA, NOAA, American Geophysical Union, Royal Society, World Meteorological Organisation) endorse this view.
6. The prescription:
Without swift and deep emissions cuts, limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels will be extremely difficult.
It is predicted that 1.5 degrees C could lead to irreversible impacts and tipping points Without intervention, warming is projected to reach 1.5 degrees C between 2030 and 2052 (high confidence)
Striving to keep warming under 1.5 degrees C, rather than 2 degrees C, can dramatically reduce risks from extreme events, food insecurity, ecosystem loss, and poverty
Mitigation strategies must be immediate and transformative, with co-benefits for adaptation, sustainable development, and ecosystem resilience 7. Consensus among Scientists
There is a near-total consensus among climate scientists that:
Warming is happening and is unprecedented in rate.
It is mainly driven by human activities—especially fossil fuel use, industrial emissions, and land use changes
Surveys of scientific literature find 99%–100% agreement on human influence being the primary cause of current warming
8. Dissent from the Consensus
HOWEVER... while the scientific consensus is extremely strong (99%+ of publishing climate scientists agree humans are the main driver of current warming), there is a very small number of scientists who are sceptical or dissent from this view.
They come from varied backgrounds: a handful are climate scientists, but many are physicists, geologists, engineers, or retired academics not actively publishing in climate research.
Examples of often-cited dissenting figures include:
Richard Lindzen (MIT, atmospheric physicist, retired) – argues climate sensitivity to CO2 is overstated.
John Christy (University of Alabama in Huntsville, atmospheric scientist) – co-developer of satellite temperature records; tends to emphasize natural variability and downplays severity of warming.
Roy Spencer (University of Alabama in Huntsville, atmospheric scientist) – similar views, often cited by sceptics.
Judith Curry (formerly Georgia Tech, climatologist, retired) – accepts warming is occurring but questions certainty about attribution and projections.
9. Why the disagreement?
Lower climate sensitivity estimates: Some dissenters argue that models overestimate how much warming will result from CO2 increases.
Focus on natural variability: Some emphasize solar cycles, volcanic activity, or ocean oscillations as drivers of recent warming.
Policy scepticism: A portion of dissent comes less from science itself and more from concerns about the social, political, or economic implications of climate policies.
The views of the contrarians are not widely accepted in the climate science community. Surveys of peer-reviewed literature show less than 1% of papers reject human-caused climate change.
Many of the sceptics publish little recent climate research in leading journals; their claims often appear in opinion pieces or think-tank reports instead.
National academies of science and major scientific bodies (NASA, NOAA, AGU, Royal Society, etc.) all affirm the consensus view.
10. Scientific consensus can be wrong
We should remember that the scientific consensus can be wrong. Sometimes views that were once heretical become mainstream in time. In fact there is never progress in science without some kind of consensus view being overturned.
For instance the theory of Continental Drift, first proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912, was considered a fringe idea for several decades.
There appeared to be a lack of a mechanism to cause the movement. Wegener suggested that continents plowed through oceanic crust, but he couldn’t convincingly explain how. Geophysicists of the early 20th century rejected this as implausible. Most geologists believed in a static Earth where continents and ocean basins were fixed. The idea of massive continents moving seemed radical.
Wegener had strong clues (matching fossils across continents, complementary coastlines like South America and Africa, similar rock formations across oceans), but without the physics to back it, many dismissed it as coincidence.
By the mid-20th century, new evidence started tipping the scales in favour of Wegener’s theory and it is now regarded as an established theory with a mechanism and strong explanatory power.
11. Public Scepticism of Science
Amongst the public some of the resistance to the idea of a Climate Crisis comes down to a general scepticism of science and rejection of the authority of science. This is seen most strongly in the USA where there was resistance to mask-wearing and vaccination during COVID. There is also a strong section of the USA public that still rejects the theory of evolution. In a Gallup poll of July 2024 37% of US adults affirmed the broad creationist view that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.”
A major global survey of 71,922 people across 68 countries— including about 2,000 from the UK—found that public trust in scientists remains relatively strong. On a 1-to-5 scale, the average trust level was 3.62, with many describing scientists as qualified (78%), honest (57%), and caring (56%). That still leaves a lot of doubters!
During the COVID-19 pandemic, UK public scepticism declined. The ‘State of Science Index’ from 3M shows that scepticism fell by 11 percentage points—from 40% in 2019 to 29% by summer 2020.
A 2020 tracking report found that 60% of UK adults considered scientists trustworthy, while 63% believed the benefits of science outweighed any potential harm.
The long-standing UK political consensus around net zero by 2050 is now fraying. Both the Conservative Party and Reform UK are raising doubts about climate science and the feasibility of net-zero goals. Reform’s energy spokesperson denies human-caused climate change, while Conservative voices question the IPCC’s credibility.
Despite this, public and business support for net-zero remains strong—indicating a disconnect between political rhetoric and broader societal attitudes.
Globally, public trust in science remains intact, though political orientation increasingly shapes attitudes—particularly in Western countries. But in the US, recent years have seen deep partisan divides in science trust. While there’s been a modest rebound among Republicans, polarisation persists. The UK, by contrast, still enjoys higher baseline trust, but political leaders questioning climate science could gradually undermine this stability.
Some further reading:
