Tag: climate

What a global warming denier from the early 00s can teach us about science communication

An opinion piece by Anna Maria Schuller (CUSAP Secretary), edited by Meira van Schaik (CUSAP Blog Chief Editor), Asmi Manudhane, and Scott McSorley

In July 2001, just a few months after the Bush administration distanced itself from the Kyoto Protocol, an American author and military strategist called Bruce Berkowitz published an opinion piece in the periodical Digest of the Stanford University Hoover Institution titled “The Pseudoscience of Global Warming”.

The core issue that prompted Mr. Berkowitz to write this piece appears to be a call for de-industrialisation from climate activists, which in his view dominated conversations around climate action at the time. Concerned for the American economy, he perceived a commitment to minimizing global warming as a threat to growth and prosperity – a trade off which he deemed unjustified owing to a lack of evidence for true environmental change. 

In the past 25 years, overwhelming amounts of research have been conducted that make a conversation on the reality of climate change redundant. This scepticism however has endured; climate action is still often painted as an adversary to economic growth, prosperity, and national security by its opponents (be they politicians, scholars, or other public figures). 

More recently, this same fear of a forced de-industrialization brought about by a commitment to international treaties led the Trump administration to disavow the Paris Agreement, the UNFCCC, as well as the Energy Charter. The importance of a strong industrial economy has become the stake against which the validity of scientific claims on the necessity of immediate climate action is weighed. In 2001, Mr. Berkowitz believed that existing findings were too flimsy to justify climate action, especially if it were to place American industries in jeopardy. Lamenting the climate discussion’s “technical and arcane” nature, he stated that it would be polemic to orient economic policy on the mitigation of global warming . 

Underlying the point made by Mr. Berkowitz is the call to wait for “better data” to emerge before committing to climate action. It implies that recent scientific progress strips previous, more deductive methods of their credibility. I particularly take issue with the notion that tested scientific methods of obtaining environmental data should be discounted in their validity simply because they are not as intuitive as holding a thermometer in the wind. This line of argumentation is anti-intellectualism masquerading as academic rigour. Our notion of “better data” is furthermore compromised by our own bias – what data will be “good enough” to kick us into gear? 

It can be said that research in the natural sciences does carry with it some inherent exclusivity by merit of being comprehensible only to those with a strong background in a specific field, and is in many cases virtually inaccessible to those without unless through the medium of high-quality scientific communication. Demanding optimal scientific procedure is not in itself problematic either. However, intentionally or not, it has been used to discredit climate scientists, who have (with the backing of the peer review process) been able to provide ample evidence of an emerging climate crisis since the 1970s. Claiming their predictions are “pseudoscience” was a grave misuse of the term in 2001, and is unthinkable in serious academic circles in 2026. 

Fundamentally, this is a straw man argument – placing the onus on climate scientists to not only provide conclusions but also justify their worthiness of our attention and consideration. Climate scientists are forced to almost discredit themselves through numerous disclaimers of uncertainty, while also convincing partisan politicians and the general layperson of the reality of the climate crisis. It is not difficult to see that requiring scientists to publish only data that is “good enough” will open a Pandora’s box of scientific communication challenges and accusations of dishonesty – so what are they to do?

It is not the purpose of this article to pass judgement on Mr. Berkowitz’s academic rigour. His opinion piece however gives us a glimpse into the pathways of thinking that climate policy sceptics follow to justify global climate inaction. It is a masterclass in undermining climate science by listing completely truthful statements in a manner that insinuates incredibility. He points to 1) complications in long-term data collection, 2) vast amounts of assumptions and 3) high computing power required to generate holistic atmospheric models, as aspects that should make us wary of the conclusions they produce. As if added scientific complexity obscures their purpose and strips them of validity. 

The accessibility of scientific methods and conclusions remains climate science’s holy grail, but the lack of a simple answer should not lead to distrust in the scientific community. Challenges to their integrity are particularly hard to navigate for climate scientists, as they are simultaneously asked by policy makers to continuously increase the complexity of their methods and conclusions in a never-ending flood of climate reports. How much responsibility do scientists carry to editorialize their findings to minimize negative impact (that in itself is impossible to predict), or should it be their prerogative to editorialize as little as possible to allow each actor to carry forward their own analysis free of previous bias? Can we bias-proof scientific communication around the topic in a way that does not erode the public’s faith in climate publications? 

This paradox remains unsolved, and has evolved only minimally since the early 2000s. Approaching both new and old findings in the field with curiosity, and trusting the scientists behind these findings, is our only recourse to retaining a productive conversation. Climate action is both fortunately and unfortunately everyone’s business; from layperson to expert, from economist to ecologist, from child to senior citizen; our definitions of “sustainable”, “long-term”, and most importantly – “worthwhile” – vary vastly. Trust in climate scientists does not equal blind faith. The complexity of the scientific method makes its accessibility dependent on the ability of science communication to capture both nuance and urgency implied in evidence. Effective science communication is at the nexus of the climate crisis, and will be the key to restoring confidence in this ever-evolving discipline.

Pseudoscience in the Climate Conversation – what should you be reading?

Author: Anna Maria Schuller, CUSAP Secretary

Walking into a bookstore anywhere in the world today, you can orient yourself fairly quickly. Bright colours and romantic illustrations point you towards the #booktok section, self-help books yell at you with their large titles on minimalist backgrounds, and tastefully bound hard-copies of classical literature are assembled along old-timey styled shelves. In recent years, a new section of books kept in greens, blues, and earth tones with globes and nature-focused illustrations on the covers has appeared: the climate science books – helping the everyman make sense of the climate crisis.

This past term (Lent ‘26), CUSAP had the great pleasure of hosting Dr. Kennedy Mbeva and Prof. Mike Hulme, who highlighted to us some of the less widely discussed aspects of the climate conversation. We’ve collated some of their recommendations for you, so you know what to look out for the next time you find yourself in a bookstore.

Mike Hulme – “Understanding Climate Science – Consensus and Misinformation”

Climate Change isn’t Everything: Liberating Climate Politics from Alarmism – Mike Hulme

Starting off with one of his own works, this book is an excellent read especially for our members who weren’t able to attend Professor Hulme’s talk in person. With this book, he achieves two things; he manages to refine the climate conversation, focussing on evidence-based discussion that allows us to isolate manageable climate-related issues to solve. At the same time, he moves the conversation forward by pushing past alarmism. Importantly, rather than its title might suggest, this book is far from falling into climate change denial, and offers a very solution-oriented perspective that will appeal to anyone worried for our planet.

In continuation of an essay written by Professor Eric Winsberg (British Academy Global Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge), and as an expansion of this book, Professor Hulme has also authored a great blog post titled “We Need Scientific Dissidents Now More Than Ever”, which you can find here. He warns us of the scientific equivalent of Plato’s “Noble Lie”, and the threat of undermining climate research by withholding / misrepresenting existing findings. This short post is an excellent introduction to the concepts explored in the book, but as a five minute read will remain with its readers as food for thought for a long time.

Mike Hulme is a Professor of Human Geography at the Department of Geography of the University of Cambridge

The Crisis of Expertise – Gil Eyal

Although not specific to climate change by any means, this nonetheless highly relevant exploration of the role of experts in modern decision making will be fascinating to researchers across all fields engaged in the public discourse. It explores the dissonance between a global reliance on “experts”, for example those with a deep understanding of climate change mitigation technology and the simultaneous mistrust they often face. Furthermore, it challenges the growing politicization of science, and elaborates on its threats, forming an interesting read especially in combination with Mike Hulme’s book.

Gil Eyal is a Professor of Sociology at Columbia University, and the recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship (2017)

Kennedy Mbeva – “On intergenerational solidarity in climate cooperation.”

Long Problems: Climate Change and the Challenge of Governing Across Time – Thomas Hale

The newest edition to Thomas Hale’s canon of works is a great entry point to understanding a new way of thinking about the climate crisis; It tackles questions of responsibility and prioritization in the present, when consequences are not felt directly and must be anticipated over decades and centuries. At a time when young people are taking to the streets to demand that governments act with their future needs in mind, and those responsible for the advent of climate change long gone, how will we need to make decisions moving forward?

Thomas Hale is a Professor of Global Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government (University of Oxford), and a fellow at St. Antony’s College

The Once and Future World Order: Why Global Civilization Will Survive the Decline of the West – Amitav Acharya

Not specifically focused on climate science but nonetheless highly relevant, Amitav Acharya walks us through a history of the world order, and explains why domination by the West is neither inevitable nor likely in a future marked by uncertainty. In doing so, he unpacks misconceptions about geopolitical dynamics and shifting power structures. For Dr. Mbeva, this raises an important question: When the world order shifts, who will be there to combat the climate crisis?

Amitav Acharya is a Professor of International Relations at American University in Washington D.C., as well as holding the UNESCO Chair in Transnational Challenges and Governance

Innovation and its Enemies: Why people resist new technologies – Calestous Juma

Far ahead of its time in 2016, Calestous Juma lays out the moral, socioeconomic, psychological, and historical factors that prevent the adaptation of new technologies into the mainstream. When read through a climate lens, Dr. Mbeva finds that Prof. Juma can help us understand the inertia inherent to political decisions to support technical solutions to climate change and global warming.

Calestous Juma was a Professor of the Practice of International Development and Faculty Chair of the Innovation for Economic Development Executive Program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

We are beyond grateful to both Professor Hulme and Dr. Mbeva for sharing their points of view with us, and hope that you, our readers, will carry these conversations forward!