OPTIONS POLITIQUESAVRIL 2010

74

C limategate: Is it real, imagined or simply exploitableby climate skeptics? As if the opening of a newdecade were not complicated enough with the left-

overs of a major global financial meltdown and govern-ments arguing over the nature of an elusive recovery, we arenow asked to contemplate more uncertainty and soulsearching on what are the next risks for global society.

While those concerned over global warming see highrisks as a result of dramatically changing weather patternsand want to put in place measures to reduce that risk, oth-ers continue to decry the prophets of doom and attack thebody of science established over the past 30 years.

In the midst of this stew of noticeable events, like agiant beached whale, lies the debate over climate change,the underlying science and attempts by both sides to con-vince fellow citizens that they hold the truth to the ques-tion of the impact of a changing climate.

One of the consequences of the recent scandals thathave enveloped the scientific community over e-mailsleaked from a British climate lab at the University of EastAnglia was the allegation that scientists were attempting to

keep temperature data out of the clutches of climate skep-tics or those seeking the information.

To add insult to injury, just as the participants in theConference of the Parties (COP15) were gathering inCopenhagen, it was reported worldwide that the high-pro-file and crucial 2007 report of the United Nations’Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) includ-ed the false assertion that the Himalayan glaciers could meltto nothing as early as 2035.

Apart from the allegations and mudslinging, scientistsand the UNFCCC all went into damage control. The chair-man of the IPCC announced that an independent reviewbody will, from now on, examine the panel’s procedures forassessing climate change. Hence the term Climategate wasadded to our lexicon.

The immediate fallout from this dispute over the accu-racy of scientific research has been to put that research intodoubt. The March 4 Globe and Mail editorial entitled “Eco-glasnost” summed all this up quite nicely:

These incidents gave a boost to those who feel thathuman-caused climate change is overblown, and pro-

CLIMATEGATE: BAD SCIENCE,RED HERRING OR POLITICALAND MEDIA FOOTBALL?Daniel Gagnier

Climategate makes for fascinating reading, but as unfortunate as it is for the sciencecommunity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), it is a diversion on the road to dealing with global warming. Globalwarming is a reality that we need to better understand if we are to mitigate it andadapt to its consequences in a way that allows humanity to protect its habitat, whiletransforming its economic activities in order to ensure a sustainable prosperity. Tomake the right choices, we need to communicate through cultural realities andspecial-interest groups in order to find acceptable political and societal solutionsworthy of our individual and collective investments.

Le « Climategate » a beau faire des titres accrocheurs, il n’est qu’une diversion dansla lutte contre le réchauffement planétaire, aussi embarrassant soit-il pour lacommunauté scientifique et la Convention-cadre des Nations Unies sur leschangements climatiques. Le réchauffement climatique, affirme Dan Gagnier, estune réalité que nous devons mieux comprendre pour l’atténuer et nous adapter àses répercussions en vue d’aider l’humanité à protéger ses habitats tout entransformant son activité économique en fonction d’une prospérité durable. Pourfaire des choix éclairés, nous devrons mieux communiquer entre cultures et groupesd’intérêt pour imaginer des solutions politiques et sociales dignes de nosinvestissements individuels et collectifs.

POLICY OPTIONSAPRIL 2010

75

vided ammunition to extremistswho see the entire issue as ahoax or a scientific conspiracy.Worse, the incidents and theiraftermath revealed the scientificcommunity to be defensive whenchallenged, and almost paranoidabout dissenting opinions. Now,scientists must redouble theirefforts to be open and transpar-ent, and they must admit errors.More recently, there has been a

good start at renewal. The British cli-mate scientist Phil Jones, who wrotemany of the incriminating e-mail mes-sages at East Anglia, appeared in frontof a special committee of Parliament inLondon last month, and was forth-coming about what he called his“awful” messages. And Britain’s chiefscientist, John Beddington, in an inter-view with the Guardian, clearly enunci-ated the approach that must be taken.“Skepticism and criticism is the wayscience grows,” he said. “Where at allpossible, data and analyses should beavailable so that people can do thechallenging in an unhindered way.”

So much for the mea culpas. Butwhere does that leave the rest of us poormortals in trying to figure out the scopeand seriousness of climate-related research and conclu-sions? How do we relate thisset of “mistakes” or misrep-resentations to the lack ofsuccess in Copenhagen andthe list of global issues iden-tified at Davos? There is alink here, as sustainabledevelopment — includingenergy, water, resource efficiency, tech-nologies for a low-carbon world — andeconomic competitiveness, racing forgreener economies, interlink with ques-tions of where we are going and whatwe need to get there.

These are critical issues in the trans-formation of national and regionaleconomies. Overarching and interwov-en into the mix are the rise of Chinaand India as economic powers, in juxta-position with a struggling US economy.The credibility of scientific research andof the scientists who look for answers to

what is happening and what we can doto mitigate the worst impacts is inex-orably tied to the willingness of politi-cal leaders and their constituents toform the right-minded view on theissues and the possible solutions. Is thescience flawed and incorrect? Or is sci-ence running afoul of politics andentrenched special interests?

A 2010 article entitled “Anatomy ofIPCC’s Mistake on Himalayan

Glaciers and Year 2035,” by BidishaBanerjee and George Collins, looks atmistakes made in the IPCC reviews andechoed in the media. The article answersthe question “How did this happen?” Sofar so good, but as the editor of the pub-licaton points out, “The next questioninvolves how the IPCC addresses flawsin its procedures to prevent recurrenceof such a mistake.” Prophetically hegoes on to state: “The world’s glaciers,after all, aren’t sitting idly waiting. Forthem the clock is ticking.”

So scientists, like economists,politicians, business leaders and justabout anyone labelled “human,”make mistakes. Do those errors inval-idate the body of work? If severalthousand e-mails from any body of

work were scrutinized, would we notfind errors in judgment, misrepresen-tations of opinion or juvenile com-ments? I believe the results of thistempest have not yet invalidated thefact that the global climate is warm-ing, and that we need to rise aboveour opinions and to agree on what istaking place (regardless of who orwhat is causing it). We also need toform an opinion on how it will affectour living space and quality of lifeand what we can or should do aboutit. This is too serious a challenge for

us to descend into endless mudsling-ing, recriminations and fog chasing.

In his recent blog, Marlo Raynoldsof the Pembina Institute, which pro-motes as its mission sustainable energysolutions, asks, “How would we respondto an equal threat that wasn’t called cli-mate change?” It is a valid question.Without resorting to research, every daythe media reports the effects of globalwarming as the melting of Arctic iceaccelerates and chunks of Antartica thesize of small countries break off and driftinto the southern oceans. Speculationon what this will do to ocean currentsand the corresponding effects stares usin the face periodically.

What Raynolds is saying is that ifwe can get over what we last heard andfocus on what we are observingaround us, we will arrive at the conclu-sion that we need to better understandthe impact of these changes, if only tobe able to calculate the risk and thedegree of effort we need to invest ineither mitigation or adaptation. Theformer is, in the common person’sunderstanding, linked to prevention,while the latter deals with theunavoidable and invests in remedialactions. The alternative to any of this

is to ignore what is going on and hopelike the dickens that when we removethe covers from around our heads theworld will be all right.

T he only problem with this sce-nario is that by then it is usually

too late to experiment and testoptions, and our choices will revert todrastic solutions to meet the dramaticimpacts that no one can predict withcertainty today. How many times havewe heard “So what is wrong withgrowing pineapples in Manitoba? Or

Climategate: Bad science, red herring or political and media football?

To add insult to injury, just as the participants in theConference of the Parties (COP15) were gathering inCopenhagen, it was reported worldwide that the high profileand crucial 2007 report of the United NationsIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) includedthe false assertion that the Himalayan glaciers could melt tonothing as early as 2035.

OPTIONS POLITIQUESAVRIL 2010

76

enhancing the growing season inCanada to enable us to have more pro-ductive growing seasons?” In theory,nothing; in common-sense terms,everything.

The scale of the impact on ourchildren and grandchildren is such anunknown that the prospect of invest-ing energy and monies now to offsetthe worst of the risk is akin to pru-dence or the acquisition of a reason-able insurance policy. My ownconclusion, where peer-reviewed sci-ence carries the day, is to hedge and torecognize that global warming is a real-ity that does and will continue toimpact on our well-being. This doesnot answer how we should react orwhat policies we should put inplace as the debate unfolds andscientists clarify and retest thedata.

In a recent New York Timeseditorial entitled “We Can’tWish Away Climate Change,”focused on the acceleratingpace of global warming, AlGore said:

But the scientific enterprisewill never be completely freeof mistakes. What is impor-tant is that the overwhelmingconsensus on global warmingremains unchanged. It is alsoworth noting that the panel’sscientists — acting in good faithon the best information thenavailable to them — probablyunderestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century, thespeed with which the Arctic icecap is disappearing and thespeed with which some of thelarge glacial flows in Antarcticaand Greenland are melting andracing to the sea.Let’s not throw out good science,

or even adverse scientific results, inour quest to understand what is hap-pening. Rather we need to recognizethat, in its direction, the science isright, and that global temperatures areon the increase. We need to better pre-dict what this might do to our biodi-versity: How will it affect the living

and migratory patters of fellowspecies? What will it do to the world’swater supplies and to our ocean cur-rents? And most importantly, whatcan we do to better equip ourselves todeal with these changing patterns? Arewe so smug in the presumption thatwe are the superior species that we canafford to ignore what is observablearound us? I think not.

My answer to the question onthe validity of the scientific data onclimate is that we can deal with thefrivolities and the controversy, aslong as we understand the part of thescience and research that is unassail-able. In terms of its direction the sci-ence will stand as credible and largely

correct. We need to get on withdeciding what we want to do about itand to invest in solutions.

Back to Marlo Raynolds and hisexhortation that if by 2050 our planetwas going to be the target of a huge aster-oid on track to destroy the only world weknow, we would soon want to confirmthe risk, identify solutions and supportthe experts to direct the investmentsrequired to avoid or eliminate the risk.The example is interesting and mislead-ing, as greenhouse gases are invisible,uncontrollable and free of human or geo-graphic jurisdictional constraints. Theyand their consequences are therefore sub-ject to a different quantum of opinion,uncertainty, speculation and calculation.This reality makes them more difficult todeal with in terms of public opinion,political and media manipulation and,most importantly, economic imperatives.They are, nevertheless, real.

That reality and the measuresrequired to mitigate or adapt to theimpacts are what feed the debate andthe positioning of special interests.Two of the massive changes fuellingthis dynamic tension are economiccompetitiveness and our energy future.

Every week we are bombarded bywell-intentioned individuals whowant to accelerate the pace of change,regardless of consequences or costs.The justification for this fast track isthat governments will have to lookafter those who join the ranks of theunemployed and the more vulnerablemembers of society as we move atwarp speed to transform oureconomies. Every week we are bom-

barded by those who say, Donot worry, the world must con-tinue to mine our resourcesand meet the expectation ofhumans on this planet to keepor attain a standard of livingthat has become a right and aprecursor to unqualified suc-cess. Every week we hear thepleas of the developing worldand the poorest of humanity toallow them to aspire to a stateof economic well-being that atleast gives them the tools to

compete in an ever more interdepend-ent global economy.

W e are talking here of economicgrowth and jobs, in a world

where we face enormous future growthin populations, massive investments ininfrastructure to support that growthand limitations on our ecosystems interms of how far we can continue toexploit them without regard to theconsequences. Underlying the discus-sions in Copenhagen was the issue ofeconomic transformation and nationaleconomic competitiveness. This willcontinue to be the reality at the nextconfab of nations at COP16 in Mexico.

The Chinese and Indians most cer-tainly understand that competitivenessis the issue that lies at the intersectionof the environment and the economy.In terms of the business community,the World Business Council on

Daniel Gagnier

Throughout my career in the publicand private sectors I ran into theever-present willingness to blame

failure on any issue oncommunications or communicators.There is a certain grain of truth in

looking at the failure ofcommunications in the advocacy ofany controversial issue. It is also a

cop-out.

POLICY OPTIONSAPRIL 2010

77

Sustainable Development (WBCSD) iscalling for clear, predictable and stablerules in order to allow investors toundertake investments and financesolutions. The fact that the WBCSD andthe International Energy Agency arecollaborating to provide road maps onenergy technologies to 2050 is anencouraging sign. So is the work beingdone by the G8 on the economics ofecosystems and biodiversity in this UNInternational Year of Biodiversity. Theseefforts and the ongoing work reflect theconcern and the realization that weneed actions on the positive side of theledger to offset the impacts and conse-quences that degradation of our envi-ronment will have on our economicwell-being and, by implication, oursocial well-being.

What about here in Canada? Weall feel tremendously proud of ourOlympic performance in Vancouver,and the country came together in oneof those rare moments. Can we migratethat cohesiveness to tackle the issues ofeconomic transformation and thegreening of our economy, thereby giv-ing us a competitive edge in this newglobal race to sustainable prosperity?The answer is yet to be made clear.

The recent federal budget holds thepresent line and is unoffensive to thegreat majority of fellow Canadians.Future budgets will be much more diffi-cult as we must return to balanced budg-ets and find the funds needed to helppush on the transformation of our econ-omy and pull to create meaningful jobsor attract much-needed talent and know-

how to offset anticipated labour short-ages. In this mix we will have to dealwith our natural and energy resources.

If competitiveness is at the inter-section of the economy and the envi-ronment for all in this world, then forCanada there is a third reality, and thatis the reality of Canada as an energysupplier. We deny this at our peril,even if the long-term goal of our worldwere to be free of all fossil fuels atsome stage in the future. While this isa laudable goal, we will be reliant onhydrocarbons and other forms of ener-gy, including renewables, for manydecades yet. This does not mean weshould relax or diminish our efforts toinnovate and find carbon-free sourcesof energy. Even the Danes, who havelarge wind-powered renewable energy

Climategate: Bad science, red herring or political and media football?

Delegates follow the opening of the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December, 2009. The largest and most impor-tant climate change conference in history ended in failure when 192 countries, including 120 heads of government, were able to agreeonly on a take-note accord on mitigation targets and a transition fund for developing countries. Part of the Climategate fallout is sim-

ply recriminations from the failure of the conference.

CP Photo

OPTIONS POLITIQUESAVRIL 2010

78

supplies, have not found a way theycan be fossil-fuel independent untilwell toward the end of this century.

As Brian Lee Crowley states in hisrecent book Fearful Symmetry: The Rise andFall of Canada’s Founding Values: “Theforecast for world energy demand

between now and 2030 shows globalgrowth requiring more of every kind ofenergy, including oil, placing the oil sandsat the heart of the world’s energy future.”

O ur thirst for secure, reliablesources of energy will test our

ability to reduce the carbon footprintof existing sources and to increaserenewables, as well as discover innova-tive energy technologies. This will haveto include meeting our potential forenergy efficiency and pricing our con-sumption of all forms of energy toreflect its true ecological costs. Withour historical and constitutional bag-gage, our ability to achieve a consensuson a national strategy for meeting ourcollective as well as regional energypotential is a much more seminal ques-tion than the temporary tempest overClimategate. Climategate is a diversionthat helps the skeptics feel good anddiverts attention and energy from thereal issue of economic transformationand environmental well-being.

If anything, we need to get overClimategate and focus on globalwarming as a game changer for oureconomic, environmental and energyfuture. Success in this will ensureCanada’s sustainable prosperity.

How do we communicate throughthe noise and clutter of Climategate?

Throughout my career in the pub-lic and private sectors I ran into theever-present willingness to blame fail-ure on any issue on communications or

communicators. There is a certain grainof truth in looking at the failure of com-munications in the advocacy of anycontroversial issue. It is also a cop-out.

In point of fact, as Dan Kahan saidin the journal Nature:

People endorse whichever posi-

tion reinforces their connectionto others with whom they shareimportant commitments. As aresult, public debate about sci-ence is strikingly polarized. Thesame group who disagree on“cultural issues” — abortion,same sex marriage and schoolprayer — also disagree onwhether climate change is realand on whether undergrounddisposal of nuclear waste is safe.Kahan goes on to point out that in

democratic societies dispute overempirical data is a war of culture, andthat moving to protect the best inter-ests of citizens lies with the ability ofduly elected governments to forge aconsensus. Kahan’s article makes forinteresting reading and provides a con-text for explaining that people congre-gate, as a result of their cultural valueson complex technical issues such as thescience, around climate. In the finalanalysis, we are good at the mechanicsof communications and lousy at under-standing the theory of risk communi-cation that takes into account theeffects of culture on decision-making.

Richard Stuebi, who has followedthis issue in the Huffington Post, concludesthat “unfortunately, both sides of the cli-mate debate — passionate scientists andpolicy advocates vs. heated skeptics andsupporters of the status quo at any cost —have moved beyond the rational debateinto the mystical…Is this what we’vecome to: holy wars about climate?’’

Climategate will pass and the tem-porary damage done by the leak of e-mails and the comments of scientistsquestioning their data sets will beresolved by reconfirmation of data ornew data as we continue to probe forfacts and test hypothesis. What will

not goaway is how to posi-tion climate issues withinthe context of evolving pol-icy aimed at dealing withthe changes and the conse-quences of those changeson our habitat. Our politi-cal, scientific, environmen-tal, economic and businessleaders carry a responsibility

here to communicate facts and toexplain the risks in a manner that pre-vents onlookers from, as Kahan puts it,“experiencing scientific debates as con-tests between warring cultural factions— and [picking] sides accordingly.”

Finally James Murdoch, chairmanand CEO of the parent company ofFox News, in an editorial in theWashington Post, hit the mark:

You do not need to believe that allclimate science is settled or everyprediction or model is perfect tounderstand the benefits of limitingpollution and transforming energypolicies — as a gradually decliningcap on carbon pollution would do.This is the moment to championpolicies that yield new industries,healthy competition, cleaner air andwater, freedom from petroleum poli-tics and reduced costs to business.The sooner we can develop this

focus the better chance we have of suc-ceeding. In the process we stand togain in this country from those raremoments when the majority end upagreeing on priorities and then actingon solutions.

Daniel Gagnier is chair of theInternational Institute for SustainableDevelopment and adviser to the Canadiandelegation to COP15. He is a formerdeputy secretary to the cabinet, formerprincipal secretary to Premier DavidPeterson in Ontario and former chief ofstaff to Premier Jean Charest in Quebec.

Daniel Gagnier

Climategate will pass and the temporary damage done by theleak of e-mails and the comments of scientists questioning theirdata sets will be resolved by reconfirmation of data or new dataas we continue to probe for facts and test hypothesis. What willnot go away is how to position climate issues within thecontext of evolving policy aimed at dealing with the changesand the consequences of those changes on our habitat.