Climate change, science and opinions

A few months ago, a well-known radio host said, “Of course there is climate change, and the climate is constantly changing. Now we have to decide whether it's due to human activity or not.”

The first question that can be asked is whether this issue is "decided" and, second, who decides it. A third is the alleged justification that, since climate changes, it must be accepted as a seemingly natural phenomenon. A fourth is often added: the desire to make citizens "guilty" of climate change.

To take it step by step, the central issue is to examine what science says. It is often disparaged, understood as being based on an often irrefutable truth. However, anyone who examines the scientific method can see that, if it is characterized by anything, it is, first and foremost, observation, hypothesis formulation, experimentation, and data analysis to reach conclusions about natural phenomena. Secondly, science reveals the uncertainty of its conclusions, which is only reduced, not eliminated, through further analysis. The virtue of science lies in these two coordinates, which implies that it cannot be equated with the mere opinion—legitimate, but opinion—of someone who, without being bound by the discipline of the scientific method, opines on the surrounding physical reality. That is why a colleague of this writer (a theoretical physicist) refused to go to a television studio to debate with a (literal) witch. It was not a question of moral superiority, but simply that the scientific method, with all its demands, could not rise to the level of opinion of those who did not apply it.

Whether or not climate change is occurring, therefore, is not a matter to be "decided," but rather one that is established (or not) by the scientific method. In other words, there is no vote on whether or not climate change is occurring. This can be done for the purposes of decisions that may be taken to, where appropriate, mitigate it (difficult at this point) or adapt to it (e.g., imposing new taxes on so-called "low-cost" flights, incentivizing the introduction and use of trains, or increasing green infrastructure in cities, which already house 70% of the European population, surpassing the measures, many of them gardening-related, that are being taken).

The third question is the justification for climate change. The argument is that, since it has always existed and is constantly changing, we must assume this is the case. However, this argument contains a clear fallacy. Never in the history of planet Earth has there been a species capable of altering it. To put it another way, climate change (admittedly, not as constant as if it occurred over time) has been primarily due to geological phenomena. It is the human species, through its consumption of fossil fuels, that is releasing into the atmosphere vast amounts of CO2 that have been well buried for millions of years (between 252 and 66 million). This third argument also contains the complacency that there would be no need to do anything to mitigate it or, perhaps even adapt to it, since the climate is going to change. Ultimately, such a change will not be perceived by current generations but by future ones, who, as in Richard Attenborough's film ("A Bridge Too Far"), could be too far behind in history.

The fourth issue mentioned at the beginning of this commentary relates to the assertion that people are not to blame for climate change. The term "blame" does not seem trivial, as it implies a negative bias that no one seems willing to acknowledge in a society that assumes itself to be mature. However, if the phrase "blame" must be eliminated, the phrase "responsibility" cannot seem to be ignored. Indeed, people necessarily contribute to climate change with their consumption patterns, and these include the generation of CO2 in quantities that no other species has been able to generate in history. Since climate change appears to be diffuse, as well as odorless, colorless, and apparently tasteless, the consumer cannot be blamed, even though the number of heat-related deaths in Europe in 2023 alone will exceed 47.000, according to a scientific study. The cause of climate change is not something external to people, but, in these historical times, intrinsic to them and the choices they make in their ordinary way of life, which includes the advertisement of a well-known online supplier of items in which a person requests that some (simple) batteries be sent to his home because his daughter's toy does not work and so he can dedicate his thoughts (supposedly) to something else.

To the above, the argument is often added that governments want to approve bans, either on the use of fossil-fuel-dependent vehicles or to impose new taxes on taxpayers. However, all these arguments ignore the very evolution of today's societies and the guarantees we enjoy. Indeed, if we look at the progress made in recent decades to address major environmental problems (water and air quality, to name a few), they have all necessarily involved establishing limits on activities that affect these two essential means of life. No one in their right mind would want the levels of water or air pollution suffered by past generations a few decades ago (smog in London claimed more than ten thousand lives). However, governments are certainly also responsible, in particular, for tiptoeing around the current reality of climate change and the looming reality, which is far from encouraging as documented by science.

Climate change is a reality, honestly acknowledged by the majority of the scientific community, a community that fails to recognize this phenomenon and its consequences to inform its subsequent research projects, as is often misleadingly portrayed. The work of science is often silent, under-recognized, but above all, subject to the scientific method itself, in which not everything is valid, and even less so mere opinions.