Level heads – not shock tactics – are needed in the climate change debate, says robert matthews |
|
Brace yourself for a downpour of doom and gloom later this week, with the publication of the latest United Nations report on global warming. Even the head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says its findings are "far more serious" than previously thought.
What on earth can they be? After all, the last IPCC report, published in 2001, was dire enough: temperatures soaring over the next century by as much as 6C; a rise in sea level of up to 34 inches, with catastrophic effects on coastal areas.
In fact, according to leaks, the new report will say temperatures will most likely rise by 3C, and the most probable sea-level rise will be less than half the headline figure from the 2001 report.
But that won't be the way the findings are portrayed when the report emerges on Friday. Expect the media reports to feature |
|
 |
 |
 |
| It is impossible to raise questions about the underlying science without being branded a ‘climate change denier’ |
|
|
those tell-tale phrases "as much as" and "up to", as they focus on the most extreme figures instead of the most plausible ones.
And don't expect scientists to inject much level-headed objectivity. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has already said he hopes the report "will shock people".
What should shock people is the way the debate about climate change has been hijacked by fundamentalism. It is now impossible to raise questions about the underlying science without being branded a 'climate change denier'. And there is much that needs questioning: the IPCC itself admits it still does not understand basic facts about the climate that could drastically affect its predictions.
As The First Post has said before, some leading climate scientists are becoming increasingly worried about the polarisation of the debate. This week gives them the chance to stand up and be counted. 
FIRST POSTED JANUARY 29, 2006
|
