COMMENTARY
September–October 2015 33ILLUSTRATION BY BEN SANDERS; PHOTO: MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY PRESS
a direct result of the fact that, over the
past three centuries, the societies of
the West (and now the East) have
embraced the evidence-based reality
of science. Yet, although professional
researchers may know the real story,
how can those of us who lack such
specific training find truth in the face
of deliberate dissembling?
Most of us no longer rely only on
edited newspaper, TV and radio
reports for information, and,
although the internet provides rapid
access to a huge body of sound
knowledge, it’s also a major source of
sophisticated propaganda.
But the internet also allows us to
probe the credentials of self-styled
‘experts’. Personally – from both
insider (medical science) and outsider
(climate science) perspectives – it’s
easy to suggest simple, universal
‘interrogation’ techniques for the
intelligent information detective.
Any scientist or commentator can
be checked out via websites such as
PubMed or Google Scholar, to
uncover where and what they are pub-
lishing and if their analysis has serious
impact. Increasingly, the science litera-
ture is open-access for all to read. No
matter what our intellectual back-
ground, any smart individual can take
up this science awareness challenge and
tell what findings are dubious and who
is fake versus who is real.
Knowledge is power – and empow-
ered, we can seize the opportunity and
act to promote the long-term well-
being of our families, our species,
and, indeed, of all complex life forms.A
MERICAN PHYSICIST Richard
Feynman once said “reality
must take precedence over
public relations, for Nature cannot be
fooled”. So aren’t rising sea levels,
floods, droughts and heat waves inexo-
rably out of our control? Surely nature
is not our construct; it’s the reverse!
What can we possibly do about it?
But the worst strategy – if we
want to ensure a bright future for our
grandchildren and Australia’s unique
wildlife – is to embrace this kind of
“it’s not up to us” attitude and fail to
engage with the cumulating scientific
evidence for anthropogenic (human-
caused) climate change.
Just as when opponents of vaccina-
tion discover their unvaccinated
infant has contracted whooping
cough, embracing the views of climate
change sceptics based on ignorance,
propaganda and invented narrative is
naive and dangerous. The truth may
be inconvenient, but we can’t allow
ideological zealots, paid propagandists
and scientifically illiterate politicians
to promote the continued, even
expanded, burning of fossil fuels.
Both our understanding of child-
hood infections and the availability
of effective vaccines against them
are grounded in sound, long-term
science. Similarly, the vast and ever-
strengthening body of evidence for
anthropogenic climate change is based
solidly on the laws of physics and
painstaking analysis of massive data
sets. These are acquired via a range of
sophisticated technologies: from satel-
lites and ‘diver’ buoys to the probing of
atmospheric gas and temperature data
stored in prehistoric ice cores sampled
from glaciers and polar regions.
And there are biology readouts too,
where our climate past is ‘interrogated’
through measurements from treerings, coral cores, and ocean sedi-
ments, while modern data show that
some migratory birds are shifting
their ranges away from the equator.
Hardworking, dedicated climate
scientists have been accused of fraud,
sometimes by extraordinarily dubious
figures from media, business and poli-
tics. The general consensus of 97 per
cent of active climate scientists is
refuted by the pronouncements of a
few scientist ‘sceptics’ (often retired
or in a different field). Could anything
be more ironic, even moronic?
This determination to ignore the
evidence for human-caused global
warming is at direct odds with the
way we approach any sign of personal
medical malaise. Suffering a sudden
pain, we go immediately to Google
and decide we have some hideous dis-
ease. Then we are immensely relieved
when our GP says, “It’s minor, take an
aspirin or two...you’ll be right.”
Why is it so different when looking
at the health of our only home, the
Earth? Like our bony skeletons,
the rocks will survive. It’s Earth’s web
of life that requires our duty of care.
For both medicine and climate
change our capacity to define the
problem and respond appropriately isPROFESSOR PETER DOHERTY shared
a Nobel Prize for his work on immune
surveillance, and was Australian of the Year
in 1997. His latest book is The Knowledge
Wars (Melbourne University Press, 2015).An evidence-based world
It is our personal responsibility to seek the truth on the important
debates that will decide our future, says Peter Doherty.
PETER DOHERTY