There are going to be a lot of articles on any subject that tell you opposite positions as fact. The thing is to check the sources.
Whilst the article is correct in saying that Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, is a 'former railway engineer', they are clearly trying to denigrate him. He was an engineer and also a professor of economics. It is absolutely true that he has no qualifications in climate science. However, the IPCC is a body of thousands upon thousands of scientists from around the world who do. Pachauri does not formulate policy, he is more of a figurehead and spokesperson.
(Meanwhile, the other article you pasted is by Bjorn Lomborg, is a political scientist and statistician with no scientific qualifications and who, unlike Pachauri, represents nobody who does).
If you're going to cite an article here, it would be good to tell us where you got it from. The one you just cut and pasted contains blatant falsehoods common to the climate-denier perspective.
The article cites "Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious “hockey stick” graph".
The 'hockey stick graph' (showing global temperatures suddenly rising in the shape of a hockey stick) has not been debunked.
The original findings have been vindicated by subsequent studies.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
Climate-deniers like to confuse weather with climate, but it is essential to differentiate. Yes, as the article said, there were unseasonal cold snaps in the US and Europe last year. Yet still, the global climate was warmer than any time since before 1997. (Even with localised temperatures, our grey washout summer in Britain was above average temperatures).
It's also important to distinguish between local and global averages. When you read the common claim that '1934 was the hottest year on record', that's a figure for 48 American states, not the globe.
They claim that temperatures "have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped".
That is just wrong. Here's a graph of annual global temperature since 1850.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html
The fifteen hottest years are in the last 20 years.
Temperatures dropping 'since 2007' means one year. And that is the tenth hottest year on record, still above anything since 1995.
jshell wrote: is the change being used to stifle 3rd world economies, or used to justify huge payouts to struggling economies, make money for certain industries or even as a way of justifying moving away from fossil energy
Quite the opposite. The vested interests are trying to ensure we keep using fossil fuels.
They denied climate change was happening for years, then they tried to say that scientists were undecided, now they say that there will be magic ways of making fossil fuels low-carbon - all of these things are stalling tactics to keep us burning fossil fuels.
As for the effect on poorer nations, climate change is already impacting. Rainfall patterns have moved in eastern Africa, forcing Ethiopian farmers off their land. Parts of Bangladesh that used to flood every 20 or 30 years now flood every 2 or 3, making them unfarmable. It is literally taking the food away from the poorest people on earth.
Those concerned with poorer nations - Oxfam, Christian Aid, War On Want, World Development Movement - all devote a lot of energy to climate change campaigning precisely because it will hit the poorest hardest.
Christian Aid's report 'The Climate of Poverty; Facts, Fears and Hope' says it is likely to kill 180 million people this century in sub-Saharan Africa alone, if emissions aren't reined in.
jshell wrote: I just don't think the truth is obvious.
I think it is. All you have to do is answer four simple questions.
1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide?
2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures?
3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide?
4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide?
|
