Blog
26.March 2009 - 04:46
A flood of disconcerting, controversial research data on climate change
“A drearier forecast than ever on climate change” – that was the headline concerning the unofficial researcher meeting recently held in Copenhagen. At the same time, several research studies have been published in various, well-regarded publication series. These studies note that the climate has cooled during the past decade, despite the fact that emissions have increased explosively. The prognosis is that cooling will continue at least until 2015 or even longer.
A normal citizen must feel quite confused when reading these controversial messages. The cooled-off figures are measured facts, but nobody knows how to interpret these.
I have actively followed the climate change conversation that has engaged people around the world, as I am working on my doctoral dissertation on this subject. Therefore, my attention was drawn to a letter published in a scientific blog. The writer was a scientist who had attended the Copenhagen meeting mentioned above as the chairman of a working group.
In his text, Mike Hulme, a professor of Britain’s East Anglia University and director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, expressed his surprise at the official communiqué issued at Copenhagen. (Link: What was the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference really about?) Hulme praised the conference as such and the high level of conversation within it, but he was dismayed by the summary communiqué given in the name of all scientists to the entire world, as it included quite a number of purely political conclusions.
Hulme denied that the conclusions would have reflected the discussion among scientists: “These only have the authority of their drafters – nothing more. Not the scientific authority of those 2500 experts who took part in the conference. And especially, these do not possess the authority of the world-wide scientific community.”
According to Hulme, the communiqué of Copenhagen has never been submitted at any stage for comments by scientists. He claimed that even the organising party of the conference was unknown to the scientists, a mere coalition of certain universities that wished to be regarded as a prominent representative of the scientist community, rather like the IPCC.
The issue is hot and it clearly fascinates great many do-gooders and even spurs on exaggeration. But, the scientists should be allowed to keep their credibility, as we will require their input during the upcoming decades.
We have recently accepted in Parliament a resolution on climate change, which urges us to take into consideration the latest scientific reports within the preparations of the climate change agreement. It also prompts us to ensure that the set goals are coherent with the latest scientific information.
I assume that the drafters of this wording expect the scientists to provide us with even more alarming research results. This is surely valid with regard to the increase in emissions. But now, the temperatures do not logically follow the increase in emissions. Until now, we have assumed such. Whereas it was like this during the last decade and the temperature rose by 0.7 degrees, during this decade the temperature has cooled down. The past decade has disturbed the linearity of logic. We may say that the logic is far more complicated.
The time sequence is too short to draw any conclusions and too short to pass the earlier warming without worries. There is no definite information available yet. I interpret this in such a way that the CO2 emissions must be determinedly reduced through wise politics, which focuses on lowering carbon-intensity all over the world. However, it is important that we don’t close our eyes, for the sake of any ideological reasons or political pride, to the latest scientific results. We must really listen to the scientists and not put words in their mouths, as was recently done in Copenhagen.
In any case, it is worth investing in measures that have been proven to be useful. Energy should be saved, our energy self-sufficiency must be increased, fatal particulate matter emissions must be cut and pollution must be prevented. Therefore, such measures that combat climate change and stand in the same line with the undeniable goals are, in every case, an obligatory investment in our future. Unilateral, bureaucratic, expensive and inefficient measures made in blind haste are more and more questionable
“A drearier forecast than ever on climate change” – that was the headline concerning the unofficial researcher meeting recently held in Copenhagen. At the same time, several research studies have been published in various, well-regarded publication series. These studies note that the climate has cooled during the past decade, despite the fact that emissions have increased explosively. The prognosis is that cooling will continue at least until 2015 or even longer.
A normal citizen must feel quite confused when reading these controversial messages. The cooled-off figures are measured facts, but nobody knows how to interpret these.
I have actively followed the climate change conversation that has engaged people around the world, as I am working on my doctoral dissertation on this subject. Therefore, my attention was drawn to a letter published in a scientific blog. The writer was a scientist who had attended the Copenhagen meeting mentioned above as the chairman of a working group.
In his text, Mike Hulme, a professor of Britain’s East Anglia University and director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, expressed his surprise at the official communiqué issued at Copenhagen. (Link: What was the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference really about?) Hulme praised the conference as such and the high level of conversation within it, but he was dismayed by the summary communiqué given in the name of all scientists to the entire world, as it included quite a number of purely political conclusions.
Hulme denied that the conclusions would have reflected the discussion among scientists: “These only have the authority of their drafters – nothing more. Not the scientific authority of those 2500 experts who took part in the conference. And especially, these do not possess the authority of the world-wide scientific community.”
According to Hulme, the communiqué of Copenhagen has never been submitted at any stage for comments by scientists. He claimed that even the organising party of the conference was unknown to the scientists, a mere coalition of certain universities that wished to be regarded as a prominent representative of the scientist community, rather like the IPCC.
The issue is hot and it clearly fascinates great many do-gooders and even spurs on exaggeration. But, the scientists should be allowed to keep their credibility, as we will require their input during the upcoming decades.
We have recently accepted in Parliament a resolution on climate change, which urges us to take into consideration the latest scientific reports within the preparations of the climate change agreement. It also prompts us to ensure that the set goals are coherent with the latest scientific information.
I assume that the drafters of this wording expect the scientists to provide us with even more alarming research results. This is surely valid with regard to the increase in emissions. But now, the temperatures do not logically follow the increase in emissions. Until now, we have assumed such. Whereas it was like this during the last decade and the temperature rose by 0.7 degrees, during this decade the temperature has cooled down. The past decade has disturbed the linearity of logic. We may say that the logic is far more complicated.
The time sequence is too short to draw any conclusions and too short to pass the earlier warming without worries. There is no definite information available yet. I interpret this in such a way that the CO2 emissions must be determinedly reduced through wise politics, which focuses on lowering carbon-intensity all over the world. However, it is important that we don’t close our eyes, for the sake of any ideological reasons or political pride, to the latest scientific results. We must really listen to the scientists and not put words in their mouths, as was recently done in Copenhagen.
In any case, it is worth investing in measures that have been proven to be useful. Energy should be saved, our energy self-sufficiency must be increased, fatal particulate matter emissions must be cut and pollution must be prevented. Therefore, such measures that combat climate change and stand in the same line with the undeniable goals are, in every case, an obligatory investment in our future. Unilateral, bureaucratic, expensive and inefficient measures made in blind haste are more and more questionable