Yes
The outcome of the Copenhagen Climate conference may have been less than satisfactory. Still let’s not judge the climate chnge debate on the mistakes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . I feel some of these aspects need to be examined more realistically, before we too become over exaggerated in our arguments. For example, the major mistake made by the IPCC (stating that Himalayian glaciers would probably disappear at this rate by 2035, when they won’t), is that they kept the fact that they knew they had made a mistake secret for far too long. If they had bothered to admit that a mistake had been made last year, then the incredulity at the situation would not have escalated to the extent that it has done. We wouldn’t have a situatuion where people don’t believe that climate change exists at all. Therefore, the scientists who selfishly decided not to admit to their errors should be the ones who are blamed, instead of many others who have put a lot of hard work into helping to prove that climate change does in fact exist. In other words, in a document where one section out of 3,000 pages has been shown to be incorrect, we shouldn’t suddenly jump to the conclusion that all of it is.
Naturally it’s completely wrong for someone classed as a “leading expert” to abuse their power to over exaggerate the problems of climate change, but the decades of research that has been put into this should not become undermined by a mistake that, although certainly not trivial, is only one aspect of climate change as a whole.
The problem with climate change is the ease with which it is possible to reject it by simply denying it. To believe it needs proof, something which is incredibly difficult to give with absolute certainty, and something which the IPCC have certainly not helped. However, the fact that scientists have been tirelessly working to try to close down the possibilities that man made emissions are not causing problems should illustrate that this issue is not being taken lightly. Just because there isn’t an easy equation that suddenly states “Climate Change Does 100% Exist”, it doesn’t mean we should instantly deny it! Scientists obviously believe that it is highly likely, otherwise why would they be spending so much time researching it?
I have no doubt that the fight to prove climate change has not yet been won, and that the naysayers probably have gained some ground after the follies of the IPCC. Still, the reasoned responses after the mistake, from leading environmental figures, such as Ed Miliband, the UK’s representative at the UN’s climate change summit, and the Met office, show that we shouldn’t lose our faith yet. Otherwise it is likely to be devastating for ours, and future generations to come.
No
Doing your fair share to stop climate change is a little bit like voting for the Liberal Democrats in a general election. It might be your obvious choice, but frankly, you’re not going to win so why bother at all in the first place? Climate change is an issue that has occupied current news for what seems like an eternity, and as ever, we are allowing inconclusive scientific theory to govern our lifestyles.
It is simply impossible to be certain about how our climate will change, and many experts would adhere to the concept that a system as intricate as the earth’s climate, is not credibly predicted using man-made methods and tools. The work of the IPCC has consistently been blemished by an inadequate system for dealing with errors, an unwillingness to listen to conflicting points of view, conflicts of interest, and political advocacy. In 2007 a report released by the organisation contained a number of shameful errors and sloppy work, such as its embarrassingly forecast that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, rather than in several centuries or more.
More recent scandals in the public eye involves the leak of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia, revealing that some scientists were so entrenched in the battle with their scientific and political opponents that they lost their perspective, going so far as to suggest evading legal requirements to disclose their data upon request. If we want to continue to trust climate-scientists, they must be absolutely open and never resort to spin or PR. It is perhaps essential then that we distance ourselves from fears and speculation generated by the media, and realise that they are trusting in man’s inadequate predictions of the earth’s natural course.
The bottom line is, the direction and nature of climate change is not and never will be concretely known to man, and so to treat human conclusions as fact is an irrational act. What impact (if any) human activities have on the climate is not entirely conclusive and so with merit, sceptics question whether we are even able to manage climate change by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved. Fundamentally and more scientifically: will reduced carbon dioxide emissions produce a linear, predictable change in climate? The answer is ‘no’. In such a complex, chaotic system, not doing something is just as unpredictable as doing something. The portrayal of ‘climate change’ as a core issue at the heart of our society is founded upon fabricated statistics and misconstrued deductions. You know what? I am bored of being told to monitor my carbon footprint to save a world which might not need saving.
By Anne Ly
The facts of the matter are that CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been, ever, that humans are responsible for this, that CO2 does cause a greenhouse effect, and that for the last hundred years the planet has on average been getting warmer. I know correlation does not imply causation, but it does stand around, arching it’s eyebrows and nodding as if to say “look over here”. A climatologists “opinion” about global warming is far more compelling than yours, Ms. Ly. To do nothing would be very foolish indeed. That the world “might” not need saving is irrelevant. The point is, it “might” need saving. It is not something that we can look back at in a century and say “Huh. Look at that. We were right after all. We best go back in time and do something about it, stop Mexico from drowning.”
It seems your major point is that you are “bored” of it. Which is a pretty selfish way of doing things.
The Lib Dem analogy is broken, anyway. I know they never have any chance of getting into power, not in the short term at least. But that’s not the point. They can gain a number of seats in parliament in a GenElec, and thus have a voice in matters, even though they make no decisions per se. A third voice is always going to be a good thing, its why no-hopers like the Greens and MRLP should be allowed to stand; although they would make a hopeless government, they at least have good ideas.
In an ideal world, people would not be allowed to comment on climate change without painstaking academia-style referencing to back up their arguments.
I slightly disagree with you ralph – it’s true people should try and be well versed in the topic which they’re going to discuss – if they don’t they could miss out vital facts that could disprove what they’re saying entirely. But people should be “allowed” to comment on controversial topics such as these even if they haven’t gone through all of this “painstaking referencing” you talk about – even if it comes across as ignorant compared to a leading academic, it’s important to take into account what the general public think about topics, because otherwise it’s impossible to get the full picture of it. An ideal world should be where people are allowed to say what they want to be honest! And besides, if people have done their reserach, they should easily be able to disprove others who haven’t so it shouldn’t exactly matter. But I get what you’re saying – in a forum where leading academics are discussing it is vital to have painstaking referencing – just not so urgent on a student newspaper website!
The problem with that as I see it is that the views of the uninformed, at least as far as science is concerned, are usually wrong. And since most people are uninformed, the views of the masses are quite often wrong. The problem here is that the “Appeal to Belief” comes into play – this is a logical fallacy which says many people believe in X, therefore X must be true. So basically, the masses have a disproportionately loud voice, but nothing of any value to shout about.
That is sadly often the case Joe, but the only contention (if you can call it that, I wasn’t that shocked about it!)I had was with the word “allowed” – people should be allowed to have their own opinion, and in the sad cases where, as you say, a lot of people are uninformed, it should be the job of the informed to perhaps show them a different way of thinking. But by not allowing them to have their opinions in the first place it’d be umpossible to be able to do that! Kind of straying away from the comment article now, but nevermind… :)
Oh, of course everyone should be allowed to have their say. Absolutely. It’s just a shame that sometimes this system goes a bit wrong over important issues.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Lord Christopher Monckton has done far more research than the contributors here. Perhaps they should have visited his website before sounding off.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
Um…I think it’s going to be inevitable that experts in climate change will have done more research than 2 commenters for vision! With respects to that though, I can’t speak for both sides of the debate but I did research the topic, and whilst that meant that I didn’t look at every single website that talks about climate change, I did look up about the facts about the scandals behind it, so, unless you’re talking purely about the “no” side of the argument, your comment is a bit unfair!
Lord Monckton was interviewed in Vision under a year ago.
@eau rouge
Monckton is, having met and spoken with him on Climate Change and other subjects,for the interview Samantha mentioned, an absolute crackpot. The man is not on this planet- his thoughts and research on this, and other topics, such as AIDS, discredit his views scientifically and morally/ethically. His thoughts on the threat to polar bears due to melting polar ice? Oh, they’ll adapt either way, they can eat berries then. BERRIES. He sees conspiracy theories everywhere and attempts to refute scientific evidence, considered by 99.5% of scientists in the field to be irrefutable.
Lord Puttnam on the other hand, was lucid, his science was good, his thoughts on how to combat climate change considered the necessity of a sustainable future for industry whilst remaining focused on a green future. He told me that David Attenborough, long silent on climate change, as he admits he was unsure as to the reality of the situation, is now fully and outspokenly in agreement that Climate Change is happening, it is the result of human activity, and that the natural world is suffering irreparable damage.
I’m sorry eau rouge, but if you’re taking Christopher Monckton’s science seriously, I don’t think you’re in a position to suggest that the commentators here shouldn’t be allowed to voice their opinions.
@Kelly
Thanks so much for your comments. Isn’t it rather interesting that you fail to provide a shred of evidence that proves Monckton’s views wrong? It would be nice if you could refrain from calling him names too.
Also, where do you get your figure of 99.5% from? I’d like the source for that. If somebody has actually interviewed every single scientist who is properly qualified to assess the situation, well, that’s news to me.
Climate Change is really scary, now we have super typhoons and a lot of flooding going on some countries…”