Blog
24.September 2009 - 22:59
Wondering
There are a lot of strange things in the world.
Yesterday, I attended a climate seminar organised by the Grand Committee in the National Parliament of Finland. There were lot of important names among the participants, such as the Minister of the Environment Lehtomäki, climate spokesperson Oras Tynkkynen and the climate negotiator of the Ministry of the Environment Sirkka Haunia.
The more I listened, the more I wondered. Here are some examples of what I wondered:
– I wondered why the director of the Finnish Meteorological Institute Petteri Taalas does not seem to follow the scientific discussion and does not update his PowerPoint presentations concerning climate change. He presented old figures and graphs from several years earlier, although more current information was already available. The combination of outdated data and an expert position can lead the unsuspecting public astray. I was one of those who recommended Taalas to this position years back, so now I feel responsible for this situation.
– I wondered why Erkki Tuomioja, who is known as a critical reader, is satisfied with superficiality when it concerns climate change. According to his statement, all the new scientific information on climate change has just stirred up the bad news; there will be no good news. He does not seem to have noticed at all those critical wondering statements on why only the exceptional and worrying kinds of news are published in the media but the improvement or normalisation of the situation is simply ignored. Both – the bad, as well as the good piece of news – are still considered to be measured data that would deserve to be at least mentioned.
– I wonder as a whole, why so many of the elected representatives follow so superficially a matter that has been regarded to be a question of life and death. The seminar participants behaved as if there were only one solution model in the world to combat climate change – without any doubt, the European solution. This is pure parochialism and fantasy politics.
The matter must, naturally, be reasoned, otherwise people may wonder about me too.
Again, we were shown graphs, according to which economic losses caused by environmental catastrophes increased significantly over the past years, although the latest studies state that the increasing trend will vanish as soon as the material is normalised through socio-economic factors. When, at the same time, an increase in wellbeing, in the population and in unreasonably negligent construction activities in the coastal area are all taken into consideration, the damages can be explained and adjusted within a normal alignment.
The classic hockey stick, i.e. the graph presenting the fluctuation in temperature levels over the last couple of millennia which the speaker showed us and which I have already shown myself years ago, has been proven among scientists to be a fraud, leading to the drafter also having to correct it. Although the graph quite rightly presented the observed increase over the last decades, it still drew too even a line of the past temperature changes.
The perception of Tuomioja has been selective, as there has always been positive news among the negative, but positive news is seldom of any interest to the media. For example, it is rarely mentioned that the sea ice cover in Antarctica has expanded during the last decades and even the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean shows some signs of recovery from the decline of 2007.
Global temperatures haven’t increased in the first decade of the 21st century, although emissions have increased explosively and several models even prophesy a cooling of the temperature for the next decades. Some could regard this as positive, encouraging news, although it has been proven to be only temporary. At least it tells us that there are plenty of factors that have an influence on the climate.
Climate change is a serious thing, but some like to scare the others with it, without hesitation. The talk about mega problems and the wait for some mega solution has turned our focus away from so many acute problems: poverty, erosion, air pollution, epidemics. People will become just symbols for something in the future and they will find no help in the present. Some like to think that once the emissions have now been led toward the path of reduction, the people’s problems would be solved. It is not so.
Mankind has solved so many problems and will solve many more. However, it is only realistic to confess that the problem is not entirely in our hands. The processes are slow, stretching over many generations. No matter what emission reductions can be achieved, the world of 2060 will still suffer from epidemics, wars, poverty, inequality and hunger. Floods, cyclones and drought will cut their deadly swathe. Therefore, it is a question of adjusting oneself to new circumstances and exercising creativity under these. [1]
It is not wise to panic, and anyway, it will not help. This has robbed the zest of life and hope from many. Anxiety and hurry have already led us to bad consequences and lousy politics, which only increase and not decrease emissions – and actually, not only emissions but also pollution. As Commissioner Gunther Verheugen commented on the EU’s emissions trading system: is there any sense, if we export pollution and import unemployment.
There is more about this subject in my previous blog, which I wrote whilst attending a seminar: a Plan B is necessary
P.S. As an additional piece of information, I specify myself, on behalf of the readers’ feedback that I spoke of the NEWS on climate change. I am not a climate scientist but I actively follow various sites. A good example would be the news concerning the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean. As the numbers gained from one month were worrying, some very hasty conclusions were made: melting will ensue completely and soon. When the development recovered back to the normal track after a month – that was also declining, but still in the same line with the previous years – it was not regarded as newsworthy. It has been reasoned that it concerned only a short period of time. But, on the other hand, it also concerned a short time period, during which the sensational and radical conclusion was made and was not publicly recanted. If we should beware of drawing conclusions based on short periods of time, should not logic dictate that the same precaution must be applied in all directions?
I don’t deny the existence of climate change. But I am becoming more and more critical towards all kinds of alarming exaggerations, because they don’t create any good politics and will diminish the credibility of science among citizens in the long run. We will need the input of scientists very much and, therefore, the overblown and selective way of compiling news on their research projects is very damaging.
[1] Mike Hulme in his book Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity
There are a lot of strange things in the world.
Yesterday, I attended a climate seminar organised by the Grand Committee in the National Parliament of Finland. There were lot of important names among the participants, such as the Minister of the Environment Lehtomäki, climate spokesperson Oras Tynkkynen and the climate negotiator of the Ministry of the Environment Sirkka Haunia.
The more I listened, the more I wondered. Here are some examples of what I wondered:
– I wondered why the director of the Finnish Meteorological Institute Petteri Taalas does not seem to follow the scientific discussion and does not update his PowerPoint presentations concerning climate change. He presented old figures and graphs from several years earlier, although more current information was already available. The combination of outdated data and an expert position can lead the unsuspecting public astray. I was one of those who recommended Taalas to this position years back, so now I feel responsible for this situation.
– I wondered why Erkki Tuomioja, who is known as a critical reader, is satisfied with superficiality when it concerns climate change. According to his statement, all the new scientific information on climate change has just stirred up the bad news; there will be no good news. He does not seem to have noticed at all those critical wondering statements on why only the exceptional and worrying kinds of news are published in the media but the improvement or normalisation of the situation is simply ignored. Both – the bad, as well as the good piece of news – are still considered to be measured data that would deserve to be at least mentioned.
– I wonder as a whole, why so many of the elected representatives follow so superficially a matter that has been regarded to be a question of life and death. The seminar participants behaved as if there were only one solution model in the world to combat climate change – without any doubt, the European solution. This is pure parochialism and fantasy politics.
The matter must, naturally, be reasoned, otherwise people may wonder about me too.
Again, we were shown graphs, according to which economic losses caused by environmental catastrophes increased significantly over the past years, although the latest studies state that the increasing trend will vanish as soon as the material is normalised through socio-economic factors. When, at the same time, an increase in wellbeing, in the population and in unreasonably negligent construction activities in the coastal area are all taken into consideration, the damages can be explained and adjusted within a normal alignment.
The classic hockey stick, i.e. the graph presenting the fluctuation in temperature levels over the last couple of millennia which the speaker showed us and which I have already shown myself years ago, has been proven among scientists to be a fraud, leading to the drafter also having to correct it. Although the graph quite rightly presented the observed increase over the last decades, it still drew too even a line of the past temperature changes.
The perception of Tuomioja has been selective, as there has always been positive news among the negative, but positive news is seldom of any interest to the media. For example, it is rarely mentioned that the sea ice cover in Antarctica has expanded during the last decades and even the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean shows some signs of recovery from the decline of 2007.
Global temperatures haven’t increased in the first decade of the 21st century, although emissions have increased explosively and several models even prophesy a cooling of the temperature for the next decades. Some could regard this as positive, encouraging news, although it has been proven to be only temporary. At least it tells us that there are plenty of factors that have an influence on the climate.
Climate change is a serious thing, but some like to scare the others with it, without hesitation. The talk about mega problems and the wait for some mega solution has turned our focus away from so many acute problems: poverty, erosion, air pollution, epidemics. People will become just symbols for something in the future and they will find no help in the present. Some like to think that once the emissions have now been led toward the path of reduction, the people’s problems would be solved. It is not so.
Mankind has solved so many problems and will solve many more. However, it is only realistic to confess that the problem is not entirely in our hands. The processes are slow, stretching over many generations. No matter what emission reductions can be achieved, the world of 2060 will still suffer from epidemics, wars, poverty, inequality and hunger. Floods, cyclones and drought will cut their deadly swathe. Therefore, it is a question of adjusting oneself to new circumstances and exercising creativity under these. [1]
It is not wise to panic, and anyway, it will not help. This has robbed the zest of life and hope from many. Anxiety and hurry have already led us to bad consequences and lousy politics, which only increase and not decrease emissions – and actually, not only emissions but also pollution. As Commissioner Gunther Verheugen commented on the EU’s emissions trading system: is there any sense, if we export pollution and import unemployment.
There is more about this subject in my previous blog, which I wrote whilst attending a seminar: a Plan B is necessary
P.S. As an additional piece of information, I specify myself, on behalf of the readers’ feedback that I spoke of the NEWS on climate change. I am not a climate scientist but I actively follow various sites. A good example would be the news concerning the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean. As the numbers gained from one month were worrying, some very hasty conclusions were made: melting will ensue completely and soon. When the development recovered back to the normal track after a month – that was also declining, but still in the same line with the previous years – it was not regarded as newsworthy. It has been reasoned that it concerned only a short period of time. But, on the other hand, it also concerned a short time period, during which the sensational and radical conclusion was made and was not publicly recanted. If we should beware of drawing conclusions based on short periods of time, should not logic dictate that the same precaution must be applied in all directions?
I don’t deny the existence of climate change. But I am becoming more and more critical towards all kinds of alarming exaggerations, because they don’t create any good politics and will diminish the credibility of science among citizens in the long run. We will need the input of scientists very much and, therefore, the overblown and selective way of compiling news on their research projects is very damaging.
[1] Mike Hulme in his book Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity