News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Climate acceptance will take time 

Climate acceptance will take time

23 Mar, 2010 12:52 PM
CLIMATOLOGIST Steve Sherwood is optimistic that the world will come to accept that humans play a leading role in global warming and climate change, but he’s not so sure that will come anytime soon.

“When Copernicus figured out the the universe didn’t revolve around the Earth, it took about 40-50 years to convince the scientists,” said Professor Sherwood, who studies atmospheric processes within the University of New South Wales’s Climate Change Research Centre.

“We’re about 40-50 years into this problem, and we’ve recently converged within the science community.”

“But then it took another 150-200 years to convince the public that the sun didn’t revolve around the Earth. I’m hoping that this is going to happen a lot faster on this issue, but I’m resigned to the fact that it’s not going to happen particularly quickly.”

“The most frustrating thing as a scientist is that most people working on this topic think this is for real. But the public thinks there are scientists on both sides of equal stature, and that’s just wrong.”

Meanwhile, Professor Sherwood said, the willingness of the public and some politicians to believe that most of the world’s climate scientists are wrong, if not manipulating facts for political ends, “is affecting many of us”.

“It’s demoralising. It pushes your morale down a bit. But for me, remembering that other people in other fields have been through this before makes me feel better.”

Apart from continuing to point out the scientific facts, Professor Sherwood believes the only other strategy that the climate science community can use is to point out that certain groups have a vested interest in denying the issue, and “how that is likely to be contaminating the public debate”.

“We’ve been through this many times before with other problems—ozone depletion, smoking and cancer, lead, overfishing. There are many instances where the science community has come out with some kind of warning, and in many cases the policy makers did not act—and in every case that I know of the scientists were right.”

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
"Coming to terms with the facts" and heretical "denial" is not the issue, it’s what's recommends that is galling about the subject, the climate change cult within the science community want us to "pay a penance for a dooms day deliverance and politicians want to make a tax out of the Melee but there is seemingly no room for a composed, intelligent, sensible position.
Posted by Let us pay, in the name of the farter the sun and the holy gas, 23/03/2010 6:44:10 PM
Well Mr Sherwood then the so called climate science comunity must also accept that certain groups also have an vested interest in pushing the issue regardless of what the science shows. And this is very definitely contaminating the public debate. For you to claim the scientific moral high ground is quite sanctimonius, as if you could not possibly be wrong could you. I find it quite insulting that you infer that anyone who disagrees with your ideas is a thousand years behind the times. Just because you have the word professor infront of your name does not make you infalible or uncorruptiible. Any grants coming your way soon?
Posted by Loc Hey, 23/03/2010 9:03:23 PM
Professor Sherwood, if you want the general public to believe chapter and verse what you people are telling us you and all your colleagues have to stop cooking the books, like Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph plotting global temperature changes. Mann should be on the dole but he still has a job in climate research. Sherwood virtually claims there are no repected scientists who disagree with the man-made warming theory. That is a wonderful insult to almost all geologists, such as Professor Bob Carter and Dr Ian Plimer (arguably Australia's foremost geologist). Geologists get a very good understanding of what has happened in the past and it quite clearly doesn't sit well with the hypothyesis that the current warming period is due entirely to man made carbon dioxide emissions.
Posted by Bruce, 24/03/2010 6:27:26 AM
There's a tendency to put the terms "climate change" and "global warming" in the same sentence, whereas they are separate issue. To me it is a no brainer that humans cause climate change of sorts. By urban expansion, industry, our "way of life" we take out parts of the environment (trees, landscape at times ... ) and pump in a different mix of gases and chemicals than would happen through "nature" alone. But the impact this has has on global warming - or other potentially negative impacts - is less clear cut as others have stated. Placing what might be unrelated categories together as if they mean the same thing is misleading.
Posted by JayDin, 24/03/2010 7:07:46 AM
This is just the latest drivel in a stream of clap-trap coming from the CCRC. Remember Sherwood's colleague, Andy Pitman? He went on ABC radio recently whinging that 'sceptics' don't have day-jobs and are paid by 'vested interests' to discredit the work of honest, hard working academics such as himself and Sherwood. A bit rich coming from someone who depends on the freely-flowing public teat (ie your and my taxes) to fund them. Show us your hands Sherwood and Pitman - let's see if you really know what a hard day's work is.
Posted by Arden, 24/03/2010 7:08:20 AM
Mr Sherwood; the messages bac to you and yourcollegues are: Report your results clearly and with quality analysis that proves the foundamental linkage of CO2 and climate, and not just silly mathematical correleations that deomnstrate nothing. Meet with those that are sceptical and debate the issues in a serious court - This has not happened. - accept that the Jury is out at the monent. . Be prepared to debate with people like Lord Munckton with all data and analysis on the table. Accept that you have a vested interest on pushing your line. Understand that the public canot conceive that a sunstance with 0.0038% contributon will be changing oir environment in the manner you prodict. Accept that Australia is a mere 2% of the porblem and will never change the CO2 from the rest of the world. THe World as a whole is not gongi to redice CO2 levels back to 0.0036%.
Posted by doghouse, 24/03/2010 7:27:36 AM
This whole planet and all the life on it is driven by energy flows. All debates meed to start with the basics, not emotion.
Posted by Where to start, 24/03/2010 7:55:32 AM
Depressing collection of anti-science reactions to Sherwood's quite moderate notions. Doghouse, have you ever troubled to look at the science? Don't quote Monckton (or Carter or Plimer) as being scientifically credible. They have zero credibility in the field of climate science. Bruce have you looked at the science? Please don't simply recycle the malicious nonsense about Michael Mann. Look at the science, not though anti-science blogs, but the real thing.
Posted by nico, 24/03/2010 8:18:52 AM
We have caused climate change....look at the hole in the ozone layer.....and it sits right above southern australia.....and it is absolutely belting australian agriculture. The ozone depletion is affecting direct yield of our crops on a massive scale. Australia is suffering from worldwide contribution of ozone depleting gases which "congregate" en masse above our country. As someone who has farmed for most of my working life I can not believe that farmers dont get the fact that Australian agriculture is getting belted worse than anyone. Its not so much about CO2....it is all about ozone depleting elements that man adds to the atmosphere, nitrous oxide, methane in colder air, dimethyl sulphide et al....please can someone in australian agriculture pull their head out of the sand enough to see that Australia is in trouble....we have the most to lose...and its not all about CO2....ozone depletion is "our "climate change !!!!!
Posted by pablo, 24/03/2010 8:54:36 AM
A major argument for the sceptics is that climate change has always occurred. Perhaps the first thing to do in addressing the scepticism is to show how the changes we are seeing now are different to the climate change that has occurred throughout the earth's history - and they are different. The changes we are seeing are occurring faster than ever before - too fast for most species to deal with.
Posted by Hmmmm, 24/03/2010 9:05:00 AM
1 | 2 | 3 | 4  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
22 March, 2010
21 March, 2010
22 March, 2010
POLL
Q: Should any of the three AWI directors criticised by Italian manufacturers earlier in the month resign?

Yes - all three
(64.6%)

Yes - but only Olssen and Sheil
(2.7%)

Yes - but only Modiano and Olssen
(0.4%)

Yes - but only Modiano and Sheil
(0%)

Yes - but only Olssen
(1.9%)

Yes - but only Sheil
(0.8%)

Yes - but only Modiano
(0.8%)

No
(29%)

Total Votes: 525
Poll Date: 21 March, 2010

Most popular articles

Advertisement



North Queensland Register







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...