Blog
13.November 2008 - 04:52
Sceptics and puritans
“Should lying about climate change not be punished?”, was asked in the climate blog of Helsingin Sanomat, Finland’s biggest daily. In this blog, citizens ask questions, and experts respond. When I saw the title, I wondered, if the climate sceptics had grown tired of the exaggerated IPCC report-based news. But no, they were worried about something else.
The questioner continued: “As the climate problem is humanity’s most severe crisis after World War II, and as the scientific proof of the matter is indisputable, is it right that some people keep arguing against it for example on the Internet’s discussion fora and also in politics?” The questioner also called for a punishment for those few that almost willingly spread erroneous information, for example, on temperature observations of recent years, historical changes in climate and human influence on it overall.
These “few” are also the scientists that have told plain measurement information. We can simply not do anything about the fact that climate change has become a much more complicated mystery than expected. When, until now, we have thought that the warming of the climate logically follows from the increase in emissions, the temperature series have actually been surprising because of their low numbers, even though emissions have surged explosively. During the last century the temperature increased 0.7 degrees, and followed logically the increase in carbon dioxide. During the 21st century this has not been the case, and we have rather experienced a colder epoch in terms of its average temperature. Should we not be allowed to mention this?
It could be a mere coincidence, normal climate variability. However, another alternative explanation that has been offered is the change in solar radiation, or even that the atmosphere has started termostating itself. The timespan is, however, too short in order to draw conclusions and to just bypass earlier warming. The problem is that there is no certain information.
The only option becomes waiting for more scientific data. And in the meanwhile, to act responsibly and sensibly.
But do scientists dare to conduct their research, if they are likely to be punished for “wrong opinions”? This kind of climate puritanism was in the air in the European Parliament last spring, too. In its resolution, the Parliament planned to ”condemn efforts to portray the results of studies into the causes and effects of climate change as doubtful, uncertain or questionable”, I demanded the attenuation of the wording, as I was scared of the consequences. I do not understand the idea of politicians guiding the results of science, “rectifying curves” as we say in Finnish, not to mention “condemning” some interpretations as completely harmless. I, in my turn, was blamed for the attempt to attenuate the wording by my Finnish colleagues.
I hope that my own group will use its common sense and will not join the criminalisation of the discussion. In the saving of the planet there is enough work for everyone. It makes, in any case, sense to invest in actions that are known to be useful. Whether warming is happening or not, energy should be saved, we should increase our energy self-sufficiency, curb particulate emissions because they kill, and we should prevent pollution. This is why the actions that combat climate, which are in line with the indisputable goals, are in all cases a necessary investment in the future.
Instead, in these times it is more and more important to avoid expensive, ineffective and questionable solutions.
(Column published in the Nykypäivä newspaper)
“Should lying about climate change not be punished?”, was asked in the climate blog of Helsingin Sanomat, Finland’s biggest daily. In this blog, citizens ask questions, and experts respond. When I saw the title, I wondered, if the climate sceptics had grown tired of the exaggerated IPCC report-based news. But no, they were worried about something else.
The questioner continued: “As the climate problem is humanity’s most severe crisis after World War II, and as the scientific proof of the matter is indisputable, is it right that some people keep arguing against it for example on the Internet’s discussion fora and also in politics?” The questioner also called for a punishment for those few that almost willingly spread erroneous information, for example, on temperature observations of recent years, historical changes in climate and human influence on it overall.
These “few” are also the scientists that have told plain measurement information. We can simply not do anything about the fact that climate change has become a much more complicated mystery than expected. When, until now, we have thought that the warming of the climate logically follows from the increase in emissions, the temperature series have actually been surprising because of their low numbers, even though emissions have surged explosively. During the last century the temperature increased 0.7 degrees, and followed logically the increase in carbon dioxide. During the 21st century this has not been the case, and we have rather experienced a colder epoch in terms of its average temperature. Should we not be allowed to mention this?
It could be a mere coincidence, normal climate variability. However, another alternative explanation that has been offered is the change in solar radiation, or even that the atmosphere has started termostating itself. The timespan is, however, too short in order to draw conclusions and to just bypass earlier warming. The problem is that there is no certain information.
The only option becomes waiting for more scientific data. And in the meanwhile, to act responsibly and sensibly.
But do scientists dare to conduct their research, if they are likely to be punished for “wrong opinions”? This kind of climate puritanism was in the air in the European Parliament last spring, too. In its resolution, the Parliament planned to ”condemn efforts to portray the results of studies into the causes and effects of climate change as doubtful, uncertain or questionable”, I demanded the attenuation of the wording, as I was scared of the consequences. I do not understand the idea of politicians guiding the results of science, “rectifying curves” as we say in Finnish, not to mention “condemning” some interpretations as completely harmless. I, in my turn, was blamed for the attempt to attenuate the wording by my Finnish colleagues.
I hope that my own group will use its common sense and will not join the criminalisation of the discussion. In the saving of the planet there is enough work for everyone. It makes, in any case, sense to invest in actions that are known to be useful. Whether warming is happening or not, energy should be saved, we should increase our energy self-sufficiency, curb particulate emissions because they kill, and we should prevent pollution. This is why the actions that combat climate, which are in line with the indisputable goals, are in all cases a necessary investment in the future.
Instead, in these times it is more and more important to avoid expensive, ineffective and questionable solutions.
(Column published in the Nykypäivä newspaper)