              |
| ||||
In the following pages, drawing on a range of scientific sources, I attempt to counter the arguments they used. Under each ‘assertion’ from a climate sceptic, I provide the facts and arguments that I have found convincing in the hope that it will convince you. Carrying out this study has confirmed something I have long felt. The only valid reason for not acting now is if the science is wrong. Critics who see bodies like the IPCC as surrogates for world government in my mind miss the central point; they are arguing about how we should act not whether we should act! If you tell me you do not believe in global warming, against the overwhelming consensus of scientists who have studied the problem, I will argue that the onus is on you to prove the scientists wrong. One has only to glance at the thousands of pages (yes, thousands!) of the IPCC 2007 report, the hundreds of references to papers in peer-reviewed journals, the resolving of numerous doubts, the support of the National Academies of Science of all the leading economies (even the US one in the George W Bush era!) to feel the growing mass of evidence. To convince me, any sceptic has to find a hole in the scientific arguments. And this can only be done from a careful study of the underlying science. I have yet to find a ‘climate sceptic’ who can do this. When scepticism descends into personal attacks and diversionary tactics, then it’s results are wholly negative. But when it seeks to question the science, a sceptical attitude is a good thing, indeed science advances by theories being proposed, challenged and then re-evaluated. There have been many cases where “loyal opposition” (to borrow a phrase from government) has led to improvements in climate change science. But in most scientific disputes two contrasting propositions would be settled by experiment. Sadly, just as with the theory of evolution, we have only one planet to play with, so we cannot resort to experiment to test climate change theory. We have to act on the basis of the evidence and knowledge that we have. As I have tried to show below, the overwhelming balance of the evidence is that humans are changing the climate, that these changes will become dangerous, and that we need to act now to safeguard future generations I have divided the arguments into three categories: The economics of climate change The politics of climate change
Hugh Synge, January 2010.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch/. The 4th Assessment Report (AR4), 2007, can be downloaded from this site. Preventing dangerous climate change. A statement by the Royal Society, London. Can be downloaded from http://royalsociety.org/Preventing-dangerous-climate-change/ Sustainable Energy without the hot air. David Mackay FRS. Available free on the web at http://www.withouthotair.com/. A book mainly on renewable energy options for the UK, with a strong emphasis on numerical options, but includes a good opening chapter on the science of global warming. The Real Climate Scandal. Shocked by the hacked emails? Wait till you see what the other side’s been up to. George Monbiot, The Guardian 8/12/2009. And finally, for some much needed humour. The Knights Carbonic, by George Monbiot. © Soltrac 2010
|
What do you think about global warming? Is it an “inconvenient truth” as Al Gore portrayed it in his film or a big hoax? In the weeks following Copenhagen, I have been distressed to find friends and former colleagues succumbing to scepticism.