That we are at a boiling point on the subject of climate change is an understatement, and a metaphor.

Despite the fact that objective scientific data has been thrown on the table proving a climatic change, the issue of global warming continues without being taken seriously by a large part of the general public.

Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the past 20th century. This increase, especially since the middle of the last century (industrial revolution) seems to have been caused by concentrations of greenhouse gases, resulting from human activity (burning of fossil fuel, deforestation, aerosols, etc.).

It is estimated that global surface temperature will rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.

Despite the fact that these mathematical calculations (climate models) and a wealth of varied in-depth reports have been provided by the scientific community, and despite that, just last year, several UNFCCC Parties produced the Copenhagen Accord agreeing to limit the future increase in global mean temperature to below 2 °C, political debate continues.

And with the political debate, fuelled by a minor but influential part of the scientific community, the confusion of the general public becomes skepticism.

Some excellent documentary films (“An Inconvenient Truth”, “11th Hour”, “The Age of Stupid”, “Home”, “Global Warming”, “Water Planet”…) have been produced and distributed in recent years in order to clarify the question of climate change and global warming, in a way that everybody can understand that there is scientific consensus on the causes being mainly anthropogenic.

However, there is nothing like experimenting to believing and at this point, who can say to have not noticed an increase of heat in summer, a rapid changing of weather patterns, an increase in natural disasters, and the extreme temperatures suffered by countries that, not long ago, enjoyed of a more stable and milder temperature difference from winter to summer?

Is the fast melting of the ice cap a product of a mass hallucination?

What other proof do we need in order to accept the possibility that we could very well be accelerating climate change?

We are receiving "global warnings"… it is now down to us, the people, to snap out of our collective inertia and start making decisions and instruct accordingly those who represent us, because that is their job, represent and act upon the best interests of the people.

We have the great privilege to interview today, one of the best informed individuals, and surely one of the most capacitated in the world, to provide objective information on the issue of climate change.

Professor Naomi Oreskes wrote the essay titled “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” in which she reported an analysis of “928 abstracts, from scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, on global climate change, which served to prove the consensus view on the causes of climatic change being  predominantly anthropogenic.

This essay was cited in the media all around the world and by Al Gore in the documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Further to this initial analysis, Professor Oreskes expanded her calculations to detail and determined the exact percentages and variables that had led her arrive to the consensus conclusion.

Professor, it is an honour and a privilege for this international team to count with your extensive knowledge regarding this pressing issue. Thank you.

MDM; The data are the data; it cannot be seen differently to what it is. Why is the climate change issue being obscured?

PROFESSOR ORESKES: As we explain in our books, Merchants of Doubt, many people are reluctant to accept the conclusions of science. There are many reasons for this, but the people we track in our book are driven primarily by the ideology of free market fundamentalism. They refuse to accept that industrial capitalism has produced serious problems that the free market seems unable to remedy, at least unable on its own, without government help.

MDM:  Why do you think the general public is so ready to fall into skepticism?

PROFESSOR ORESKES: Global climate disruption is a bad news story. No one likes bad news. So if someone comes along and says, “the jury is still out,” most of us are glad to hear it.

MDM:  What is the correlation, in terms of geophysics, between the melting of the ice cap and the increase in natural disasters that we have come to witness in recent years?

PROFESSOR ORESKES: There’s no direct correlation, but the increased melting of the ice caps and the intensification of extreme weather events are both consistent with the predictions of the climate models.  Warming melts ice, that’s basic physics.  It also puts more energy into the climate system, energy that has to go somewhere, and some of it goes into driving weather systems.  That is basic physics, too.

MDM:  What other immediate major repercussions would have a global warming of above 2 °C on the planet?

PROFESSOR ORESKES: The most certain is sea level rise, which will strongly affect island nations, citizens of low-lying states like Bangladesh, and the world’s great cities, many of which are close to or at sea level.  For rich countries it will mean substantial amounts of money spent on sea walls and levees, for poor countries it will mean dislocation, migration, and, above all, suffering.

MDM:  How much time do we have in order to take action before it’s too late?

PROFESSOR ORESKES: Ah...well if I knew the answer to that question I’d be an oracle.  This is one of the real, and crucial, uncertainties in climate science. Here is what we do know. It is already too late to stop some of the changes underway, such as the loss of much of the north polar sea ice, and the habitat loss that goes with that.  We also know that we’ve lost a lot of time.  Consider that the UN Framework Convention was signed in 1992. We already knew then that the climate was beginning to change, and the longer we wait, the harder it will become to stop it.  

MDM: What can we, the people, start doing at a personal level, in order to contribute to a positive change?

PROFESSOR ORESKES: I am a big fan of the group climatecounts.org, which advocates the power of the pocketbook.  As consumers we have a great deal of power, more than we sometimes realize.  Money talks.  I am not a billionaire, but together with my fellow Americans I spend billions of dollars a year on consumer products and services. So patronize businesses that are leading the way in decreasing their own carbon footprints, and let them know that you care about the issue. 

MDM: Professor, we know you published a paper (amongst the many you have published on varied subjects) on women in science. Do female scientists and academics still need to work harder than men in their research, in order to be heard, or is this finally a thing of the past?

PROFESSOR ORESKES: Well, I don’t think that I worked harder than Erik on Merchants of Doubt!  But I do notice that on television and radio, “experts” are still mostly men. 

MDM: Thank you again for sharing your vast knowledge with our readers worldwide, Professor. It's been a pleasure and an honour to interview you.

PROFESSOR ORESKES: Thank you! 

GET YOUR COPY OF "MERCHANTS OF DOUBT" >>