Copenhagen's failure is a win for the Earth and the people on it

I love nature, but I also love humans, and when push comes to shove, I support poor people trying to make a living more than I support the tree - though I will always prefer a solution that can allow them both to survive in harmony. I support some environment organisations, but I do so from a pragmatic viewpoint rather than to feel holy and I don't always agree with their actions when I think they are misinformed, or when they give too little attention to the needs of poor people. I think it is safe to say that some environmental organisations seem to prioritise protecting nature to lifting poor people out of poverty, and some of the policies debated in Copenhagen would have seen poor people suffer greatly to protect the environment for us rich people. That isn't fair.

I want to protect the environment but also want to protect the poor, which I think and hope puts me in the vast majority of people on the planet. But unlike most other people, I am also an engineer and a futurologist. I spend all my time studying the myriads of factors that affect the future. Then I use logical, clear thinking, engineering and business know-how and common sense to figure out where it is going next, how it will change our lives, and how those changes will affect each other and so on. Recently, the environment has been a major topic of debate, and so has also become one of the major drivers of the future, so it occupies a lot of my time. No big punishment since I like to think about the environment anyway.

The best way to protect the environment is to formulate a set of policies based on the best science we can get, not just to jump at the first solution that comes along. Science is just a formalised, proven way of gathering knowledge, constantly resting and retesting it, and gradually accumulating it over time. Science and the technologies based on science enable billions of people to live well on a planet that used to be capable of supporting only 60M hunter-gatherers. Science is not an enemy of the environment, it never has been and never will be, in spite of what some environmental extremists would have you believe. Science will enable billions more to live even better in the future, in  a world with a much healthier ecosystem.

Before we can act sensibly, we have to understand how the climate works. And the rest of the environmental and human system too, because it all interacts in complex ways. If we don't, we are acting blind, and even with the best of intentions may do as much damage as good, as we have many times in the past. Most people don't know much science, and many don't even want to. No problem, only a few people need to - the ones making or advising on the decisions. But scientists are still just starting to understand the environment and the climate. No-one knows all the answers yet. It is a myth that climate science is in a position yet to accurately predict the future. It can't. Not by a long shot. There are still lots of gaps and holes in climate science, the climate models are far from complete, and a lot of the data we have is still of poor quality. It doesn't help if some of the scientists entrusted with the work are motivated by agendas other than the pursuit of scientific truth. Copenhagen happened because scientists alerted the world to a major problem, but now it turns out that a lot of that science wasn't real science at all. Data was fabricated and deleted, debate stifled, good science blocked, bad science promoted, models used biased equations and altered data. Bad science and its bad results then polluted much of the rest of climate science, and the lasting damage is such that not only do we not know the truth, but we don't even know how much we know. But science is very robust. Scientific bodies have learned at least some lessons, and the failure of Copenhagen under the glare of public scrutiny of the science on which the debate was based, will force new science to be done properly, or at least better. Gradually truth will emerge. Bad theories will be proven wrong and good theories will be proven correct. Science will eventually know how the environment works, and will be able to predict both default paths for the future and the likely impacts of any actions we take.

As well as understanding the science of the physical and natural environment, we also have to work out the likely future of human activity, bearing in mind ongoing population change, demographic change, cultural change, socio-economic change, everyday technological and socio-political development, and also potential responses to threats such as climate change. No easy task for sure, and we can't be as precise here of course, but that's what we have to do if we want to understand the nature of any real threats. As far as I can tell, the Stern Review failed spectacularly at this, because it used the worst possible scenarios from the IPCC, took little account of any future technology development, but assumed that all the worst practices would continue or get worse. Coming from an economist, it also totally missed the obvious responses of countries to availability of new financial sources such as carbon trading and biofuels. Consequently, a great deal of damage has been done as rainforests have been cleared and peat bogs drained to make space to grow palm oil for biofuels, or to replant the trees to sell carbon offsets. Bad futurology leads to bad advice and bad policies.

Even before Climategate blew any lingering pretence of the science having being done properly out of the water, I haven't been a great supporter of Copenhagen, which has been driven by a whole range of bad economics, poor science, and an extremely poor understanding of the progress of future technology. But it wasn't needed anyway. Even without any drive from politicians, we are already heading for a world dominated by electric transport and a combination of nuclear, solar and wind power. No subsidies were ever required for any of this, because ultimately it is cheaper as well as cleaner to produce energy in those ways. Only the next 15 years or so will use lots of oil or coal or gas, and then it will rapidly switch over to clean methods. By 2030, oil will only cost about $30 a barrel in today's money, not because we have found lots of it or it is cheaper to get it out of the ground, but because it will only cost the equivalent $30 per barrel to use solar cells in the Sahara to make the same 6 Gigajoules of energy that each barrel of oil contains. Electricity is much easier to use of course, so no-one will use oil for energy once we cross that threshhold.

Of course, the fact that we are moving quickly towards clean, CO2-free energy anyway, means that the long term projections of doom that were based on ever more use of fossil fuels were always misinformed. Many of the doom-mongers turn out to have had financial or career incentives for the doom-mongering so we can at least understand their motivation and guard against being fooled again.

The main remaining danger is that we may be close to crossing one of nature's key tipping points before then, such as methane clathrates vapourising and causing runaway warming. That looks unlikely, but the science needs to be fixed before we can be certain, and the possibility is still worrying enough to take some precautionary action such as reducing waste and improving insulation. Such obviously sensible actions also help avoid the likely problems of our lights going out because of inadequate power station provision, and of course help improve efficiency and make industry more competitive and economically sustainable. We should do that anyway, regardless of climate change.

Given this automatic change to clean energy, Copenhagen was actually rather pointless. Developing countries will not use fossil fuels when it is cheaper to use electricity from solar or nuclear generation. Those in sunny areas will also gain heavily by sales of their solar energy.  It looks like we are not very close yet to tipping points, and we have plenty of time to act to fix warming if it does turn out to be driven mostly by CO2 after all. Meanwhile, even the next few years will make a huge difference. Already, CERN is doing research into how cloud formation is affected by cosmic radiation, which itself is affected by sunspot activity. That will tell us how and by how much solar activity affects climate, something mostly ignored in climate models, but which may be extremely important. NASA have done recent work on the effects of aerosols and black carbon, which already goes some of the way to explaining the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas. Many scientists are already investigating the mechanism of cloud formation and warming in polar regions, understanding better why the North pole is suffering much worse than the South. Other are looking at aircraft condensation trails, trying to understand the highly complex interactions between stratospheric water vapour, cosmic radiation, solar activity, jet cruising heights, cloud formation and consequent radiative forcing, all interwoven with oceanic activity. It is all extremely complex, far beyond the comprehension of any individual, but the science community as a whole, armed to the teeth with huge computers, will figure it all out eventually. Even over the next two or three years, we will have lots more verified data on what has actually been happening historically and today, and corrupted data will be filtered out of the system.

So I for one think it is good that Copenhagen failed. The science was corrupted, and we were in danger not just of wasting lots of money on the wrong projects, but also of making things worse by implementing polices that affected the environment in unforeseen ways. The level of impending doom was exaggerated. And the policies being pursued would have condemned billions to poverty and starvation.

Now that Copenhagen has failed, we have a time for debate and for examination of the science. We have time and motivation to get the science fixed, and then we will know both whether we need to act or not, and when, but also know how to act in ways that will actually work based on scientific fact rather than dogma. It will be much cheaper and much more effective. The environment will end up in much better shape, and with less effort and less pain. The poor will benefit enormously from the failure of Copenhagen, and so will the Earth. Don't mourn the death of Copenhagen, celebrate it. Everyone wins.

Is environmental science now beyond repair?

First, I really like George Monbiot's blog today, but he doesn't say it all so I'm just adding my own comments. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

Like many other people right now (including Monbiot), I am very angry that some so-called scientists in climate research are getting in the way of protecting the environment. Some seem far too concerned about winning research funding, furthering their careers, indulging their egos, polishing their halos, and being seen on moral pedestals to make proper contributions to science. Although they make a lot of noise about their efforts to protect the environment, they have corrupted and obstructed the scientific method, distorted and destroyed data, and consequently their own results are worse than worthless, and their output has badly polluted the field of environmental science. And like Monbiot, I am also just as concerned that other environmentalists seem to be in denial and using technicalities to justify the behaviour rather than jumping instead to defend the scientific integrity that we will need if there really is a major climate problem to be dealt with. I feel very sorry for the many excellent scientists out there working hard to protect the planet, almost certainly the vast majority. All of them will now find that their work will be harder and their outputs less respected until the problems are dealt with.

The recent scandal is extremely worrying, because if the stolen emails are indeed real, and Phil Jones has already admitted that at least some of them are, then it suggests that some of the science we thought was true is actually false, some might not be true, and some of the holes have been papered over. It has been created with contempt for the scientific method and pushed using marketing tools and bullying in place of reasoned argument. Having read a selection of the emails at random, and some of the other documents hacked from the site, I was deeply shocked. Anyone should expect a little inevitable distortion in the field because of the height of emotion felt by researchers, but I really never though it was so bad as it is. I am disgusted that Jones hasn't already been suspended by the university pending a full investigation, which says a lot about the UEA's regard for integrity and proper scientific principles. I certainly won't be recommending anyone to study there from now on. The UEA's reputation has been trashed already, whatever the truth of the emails' validity, and if the emails do indeed turn out to be genuine, many of the supposedly top climate scientists have been shown not to be real scientists at all by their obvious contempt for the scientific method.

This is just a small group of researchers of course, but they were highly regarded in climate science and hence highly influential, and their theories have been widely proliferated and accepted in the field. Their methodology of trying to obstruct access to data, and hiding data that doesn't conform to the dogma also now seems to be quite common. Again, if the emails are real, then some journals and boards have been corrupted by excluding those who don't agree with the dogmatic line. And the damage has permeated the media, much of which has polarised along dogmatic lines. The whole field does seem to have become more like a religion than a scientific discipline. Even at recruitment stage, it seems to be prone to strong emotional and political bias, something that doesn't affect other branches of science. I think the credibility of the existing structure of climate science is beyond repair. We have to throw it away and start again, salvaging whatever bits match up to proper scientific standards. And at the moment, we really have no idea how much of it that is. It will cost a lot, but the costs of doing the wrong things based on bad science might be much worse. But science works, and good scientists give their allegiance to the scientific method, not to their emotions, so with effort it can be done. Eventually, professionalism will win.

The proper scientific method needs to be fully enforced in the field, starting now, and a major review of all the existing work undertaken, by every research centre. Research centres must share all of their data freely with anyone who requests it. Journals should dismiss and re-appoint their editorial boards with due diligence, making sure that reviewers and editors are selected purely on technical competence and professionalism, and purge any bias towards any particular view. Bodies such as the IPCC should be similarly re-staffed from the ground up. Any grants for future research must be on condition of proper due diligence with regard to scientific integrity.

I've said many times that environmental groups should be applauded for encouraging people to care about the environment and protect it, but once they've done their work, they should get out of the way and let scientists figure out how the environment works and the nature and extent of any problems, so that engineers can develop proper working policies that will actually help keep it in good shape. The we can all live in a better world. But making policies based on emotions and bad science will get us nowhere.