In 'Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom', we are introduced to ten instances of 'climate panic' which Patrick Moore, former founder of Greenpeace, attempts to refute. These examples range from the bleaching of coral reefs in Australia to claims of climate-led polar bear extinction. Inevitably, the contents of this book were controversial, and it is not too surprising that the description of this book is no longer even shown on Goodreads. However, in the spirit of diversifying the perspectives I encounter on climate change, and because my interest was sparked by his Triggernometry interview, I decided to pick it up. What if we really are all overreacting?
Unfortunately, there seems to be some misleading sleight of hand occurring throughout the text in which, in refuting a particular aspect of a claim, he refutes the whole thing altogether. Frequently, Moore cites the conditions of the Earth over the past several billion years as evidence that the predictions or observations of scientists today in response to climate change are overblown. While it may be true, based on his claims, that global warming is no threat to life in general, his claims do not refute the claim that global warming is a threat to life as we know it. For example, in discussing Polar bears he asserts that Polar bears only exist because of climate change; that is, because we are currently in an Ice Age. This has nothing to do with concerns about loss of habitat for Polar bears today - just because they haven’t always existed and had a habitat does not mean the premature loss of their (sub?)species is any less of a concern. He goes on to note that polar bear populations have risen, claiming that this “may be due to reduction in summer sea ice, not because of it” despite also noting widespread ban or restriction of hunting the bears which preceded their rise in population.
Similar claims are made in regards to corals and coral bleaching due to ocean acidification and temperature rises, as Moore points to the great biodiversity of coral reefs existing mostly in the warmest parts of the oceans. This assertion does not refute the claim that warming of the seas will negatively affect corals. An important thing to understand is that all living things have a set of conditions within which they can survive (a niche). A rise in global sea temperatures, perhaps, will not drive coral reefs extinct, but could dramatically change the distribution of these corals. In already warm areas, a sustained increase above the range of habitability of these plants still results in loss of coral reefs and biodiversity unless there is some effective way to transplant these species into now ideally warmer waters in other parts of the world. Further, the short term recovery of the Great Barrier Reef after mass bleaching in 2016 is consistent with other bleaching events internationally which have resulted from temporary increases in ocean temperatures (Baker, Glynn, & Riegl 2008), and so does not refute concerns about long-term temperature changes. Perhaps his conclusion to this would simply be that it doesn’t matter, that every species has an endpoint, but that is not the point he makes in his book. Similar issues of reason are found throughout the book as Moore falsely believes one claim to negate the other when the two are, in fact, independent.
This issue of false equivalence is often based on or bolstered by a further issue - that the sources referenced do not always support the claim which the author attributes to them. This is outlined clearly by Holman (2021), who upon contacting both Moore and some of the researches referenced found that he had misrepresented the conclusions of their findings in order to support or discount claims on which they did not report. Further, some of Moore’s claims about references are false, as a large part of his argument in Chapter 2 about bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef hinges on the allegation that articles citing a 93% of corals affected by bleaching have no factual basis upon which to make this claim. This is false, as [this] ARC Centre for Excellence of Coral Reef Studies press release from 2016 demonstrates a clear, and not particularly hard to find origin for the 93% statistic. This could, certainly, be a simple mistake. It is, however, a misleading one for readers of the book that do not desire or have the time to fact check some of his claims.
Moore also continually downplays the significance of the social impacts of environmental changes. Sea levels rising? Just move inland. Got money? Build some dykes. Nevermind that ‘just move inland’ is a much taller order on the scale of a nation like Bangladesh than for the average fishing village in Roman Britain. Inevitably, he will dismiss concerns about such events as climate refugee crises as the result of alarmism or false computer modelling. Though once again, dismissing the significance of social concerns presents a misleading sense of environmentalist arguments. For instance, Moore discusses the benefits of waste combustion as an effective way to deal with non-recyclable materials and reduce landfill. Certainly, this is an option to consider, but he misrepresents arguments against such plants as the result of some sort of fear of combustion in general or mild concerns about combustion of recyclable materials. In doing so, he neglects public concerns about the safety of combustion of non-organic materials which often characterise opposition to waste-to-energy power plants (Sun, Ouyang & Meng 2019, pp. 2473-2474).
Despite his clear contrarian nature, Moore bizarrely does not take umbrage with GMOs, instead standing with the scientific community he has criticised throughout the book to illustrate the safety and potential benefits of utilising genetically modified crops. In general, Moore is introducing arguments that I have never heard before, which I appreciate (poor skepticism is better than no skepticism.) As far as I can tell, some of his broader points are worth consideration and further research (both at the level of the personal and the academic), and I genuinely would like to learn more about his theory that increased atmospheric CO2 does not lead to increased temperatures, and could be beneficial to biomass. As such, I do think this book could be worth a read if you approach it, as with anything, a critical eye. Sir David Attenborough is not right about everything, but neither is Patrick Moore, and so it is disheartening to see so many people clearly interested in environmental science take his word for gospel without interrogating either his arguments or attempting to truly understand those of his opposition.
ARC Centre for Excellence of Coral Reef Studies 2016, 'Only 7% of the Great Barrier Reef has avoided coral bleaching', Coralcoe.org.au, viewed 15 July 2021, https://www.coralcoe.org.au/media-rel....
Baker, AC, Glynn, PW, & Riegl, B 2008, 'Climate change and coral reef bleaching: An ecological assessment of long-term impacts, recovery trends and future outlook' Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 435–471, doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2008.09.003.
Holman, S 2021, 'Fact Checking Patrick Moore, Climate Skeptic', The Tyee, viewed 15 July 2021, https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/06/0....
Sun, C, Ouyang, X, & Meng, X 2019, 'Public acceptance towards waste-to-energy power plants: a new quantified assessment based on “willingness to pay”' Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 62, no. 14, pp. 2459–2477, doi: 10.1080/09640568.2018.1560930.
No comments:
Post a Comment