Monday, July 18, 2005

Climate Change Denial...Not Rare Enough Yet!

A letter to someone I didn't...entirely agree with!

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't actually stupid enough to believe that the currently occurring climate change is anything but anthropogenic in origin. I assume you are being paid well for you're opinion! I wonder if the following website rings any bells?

I`am so fed up with arguing about the "Science" of climate change. It is no longer an issue of science it is a political issues, i`m afraid there is scientific consensus that climate change is cause be anthropogenic emissions, largely carbon dioxide but also methane. I was recently at a conference titled "Global Warming 8" at which numerous small farmers and activists from around the world testified to their first hand experiences of climate change and the impacts it is having on their livelihoods. The book High Tide by Mark Lynas is also a superb introduction to the subject. If anyone is reading this wants an introduction to climate change, and evidence for the effects then I highly recommend this book, it include photos of glaciers today and 60 years ago for example, retreat of continental glaciers particularly in the Andes is a very good indicator of climate change. Finally I should point out that in terms of "scientific consensus" we are really talking about what is written in peer review journals the preeminent of which are "Science" (USA) and "Nature" (UK) a literature review of Science found that not a single article in the last 5 years denied the basic fact that climate change at its current rate is unprecedented and a result of human induced carbon emissions! A quote from this report is

"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change". The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

This can be found on a superb blog by Mark Lynas change/

Amazingly it turns out that anyone without a vested interested in denying climate change such as oil companies are united in their acceptance of the science although often divided as to the approach we should take, this is natural and where the debate must move to.

I might finally add on a personal note, shame on you! I am far from a moralist but what you are doing in suggesting that there is a uncertainty here is a disgrace! You're actions are similar to those of the tobacco industry morons after the health risks where established, but before this was publicly accepted! I recently asked former president of Ireland, Mary Robinson, weather litigation against companies such as those you presumably work for is an avenue, which was worth pursuing, her answer was, emphatically yes! Its one thing to be an oil company but quite another to misinform people and tell politicians this is just a lefty/green alliance of hype.

Climate Change Action

Home furl google deliciousdel.icio.usnetvouz newsvine diggDigg This!reddit spurl Technorati

Enter your Email

Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz


Post a Comment

<< Home