Peter Hehir, in his article “Good science has no bias”, asserts that climate scientists should not, and will not, participate in the climate debate. Before reviewing Peter’s reasoning, it would be helpful to outline the current situation.
Climate scientists are overwhelmingly in agreement that atmospheric pollution from the emission of greenhouse gases is the prime reason why the planet is heating, and that the burning of fossil fuels is the major contributor to this. The debate has moved on from disputing the science. The fossil fuel industry now accepts that the unabated burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to global warming. And the Albanese Government claims it accepts the science. The main debate no longer is about the validity of the science, it is about the required action to minimise the climate threat. The industry and the government both claim the use of mechanisms such as carbon capture and storage and carbon offsetting justifies the ongoing use of fossil fuels. This is what the fight is about.
Hehir states in his article that, “the accepted reality within the scientific community is that it is absolutely essential for scientists to remain once removed from the policy makers. It’s not the business of science to advocate policy”. He also states that science presents the facts, and it is up to the politicians to draw the conclusions and take the necessary legislative action. This is a sound principle, but it doesn’t work for Australia because both parties of government have chosen to ignore the science and support the ongoing extraction of gas and coal.
Hehir also makes a case that climate scientists won’t participate in the debate because they have been vilified, and even lost their jobs for speaking out. This is shocking, but correct. However, if scientists were part of a powerful group, that included leading Australians, as I have proposed, this would give them support and protection from personal attacks. And it is important to recognise that climate change is not an ideological issue and never should have been politicised. Scientists would not be taking a political position; they would be using their knowledge to play a vital role in explaining the climate problem to the public and advising the required action to minimise the climate threat.
Hehir is wrong with his assertion that climate scientists will not participate in the climate debate. While not all climate scientists are in a position to speak out, several Australian climate scientists are openly criticising government policy. Joelle Gergis is a distinguished Australian climate scientist who recently wrote the Quarterly Essay Highway To Hell. This is some of what she wrote in her essay: “The most useful thing someone like me can do at this fraught moment in human history is use the time I have left to warn the public… I now understand that no amount of extra scientific knowledge is going to bring about the political change we need. Having been through the IPCC process, I am all too aware that our messages are either simply not getting through or are actively being ignored…We need more climate scientists with enough time to be involved in the political decisions being made about our future right now.”
The strategy I have proposed is based on my belief that it will take people-power to force policy change, and that the main problem that has to be addressed is the major lack of knowledge in the community about the climate problem. I have addressed this problem in my previous articles; see Climate change-government and media failure.
Just prior to the 2022 Federal Election, a survey of views on the important issues facing Australia was undertaken, using the Melbourne Institute-Roy Morgan Taking the Pulse of the Nation Survey, a nationally representative survey of Australian adults. Regarding climate change, 59% of the people surveyed considered it an important issue. The survey asked Australians the same questions in May 2024 and only 43% classed climate change as an important issue. This is a good indication that the community is not being adequately informed of the climate threat and there is a need for the major communications campaign I am proposing.
Hehir has expressed the view that “the task to press for policies to replace fossil fuels is up to the Gretas, the Violets and the Davids of the world. The activists. And to each and every one of us.” On the ground activism makes an important contribution towards forcing policy change. However, the lack of understanding in the community makes it very difficult for activists to cut through with their message. The proposed communications campaign, if successful, would make it much easier for activists to gain support for actions to force change on the politicians. The proposed communications campaign and grass roots activism are complementary actions.
My proposed strategy calls for the creation of an expert group to drive the communications campaign. For the group to be successful, the information it provides must be believed in the community. This requires that the information comes directly from experts, climate scientists and other relevant experts.
It would be a major mistake if climate scientists were not included in the expert group. Politicians, when challenged, are quite likely to claim their policies comply with the science, even when clearly they don’t. Climate scientists are the right people to explain why such claims are incorrect.
The campaign would undoubtedly bring on a massive scare campaign from the fossil fuel lobby, and it would be essential for climate scientists to combat this campaign. Although the science is as settled as any science can be settled, this wouldn’t stop The Australian newspaper from employing scientists who are prepared to cast doubt on the science. This newspaper has a history of confusing the issue in this way. If climate scientists were not included in the expert group, there could be a disastrous situation whereby the only scientists involved in the fight would be representing the fossil fuel lobby!
Climate scientists have an essential role to play in turning things around, and enabling Australia to promote strong climate action, instead of being an impediment to the world minimising the climate threat. Scientists must and will participate in the climate debate.
Ken Russell
Ken Russell spent his working life in the Electricity Supply Industry, initially in England, and subsequently in Queensland, responsible for the supply and spare parts management of large coal-fired power stations. He has been a long-time advocate for rapid climate action.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
