Global warming, hypotheses and truth

George Monbiot, leading proponent of action for sustainability, has written a damning critique of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (that Channel 4 programme I blogged about the other day). George cites many scientific studies and the programme maker's murky history as evidence against the programme, and his piece* reads rather persuasively.

George oversteps the mark in talking about "truth" rather than hypotheses, though, I feel. In my experience, we all yearn for simple truths, but all we ever can actually grasp are relatively strong hypotheses about the nature of our world. And we ultimately tend to act from our gut, not our intellect. My gut feeling is that George is probably right. But it's not necessarily the truth.

*For another good analysis of "Gore v. Four", see this piece from the Independent on Sunday.

Man-made climate change: a relatively benign religion?

Charla and I watched a Channel 4 programme entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" two nights ago.

The gist of the programme's message was that man-made climate change has become a scientific religion—and to question that religion, as a researcher or journalist, is now to jeopardize your career, or worse.

It seems quite plausible that this should be the case. The sustainability movement is rapidly tipping over into the mainstream, and the mainstream demands a simple message (in this case, "we are causing global warming, but if we change our behaviours we might be able to stop it").

Have Nots in the developing world are being pressured by us carbon-profligate Haves to forego industrial development on the basis of a provisional hypothesis of man-made global warming. Meanwhile alternative and complementary, perfectly valid, climate change hypotheses are being sidelined. Sadly, religions have always led to these kind of iniquitous behaviours and outcomes.

However, as religions go, I would argue that "man-made climate change" is a benign one, if taken as a whole. For it turns us, as a species, back onto ourselves: it leads each of us tiny individuals to identify with—and to take collective responsibility for—the continued survival and well-being of one another and the planet.

And this religion reaches far beyond its headline doctrine of action on climate change—the agendas of human rights, stewardship of natural resources, global peace and the democratisation of political power and economic opportunity all fall out of it as naturally as ripe fruit from a tree.

Which tree?

The tree of life.