 | | | 
 | 
Sponsored by the Natural Environment Research Council |  |  | 
|  |  | | (This debate is closed and is a read-only archive) | | Courtney is clinging to propaganda
[7-Dec-2001]
| Richard Courtney attempts to perpetuate a series of myths in soundbite form with very little to support his statements other than incorrect assumptions and his personal beliefs (Reader responses, 5 December). These types of ranting by sceptics are shallow and superficial. Courtney may dispute human-induced climate change, yet he cannot produce the evidence against it. Even the Bush administration accepts that climate change is occurring, as do many other governments and large corporations.
| Courtney is one of a dwindling and increasingly ignored band of individuals who perpetuate incorrect and flawed propaganda. The IPCC does not state that the climate has not changed in the past - it has, and it is these changes that enable scientists to view the current changes in context. Courtney says that the Earth's temperature changed by 4 degrees Celsius in a decade. Wrong, Mr Courtney, it did not: the ice core evidence and other proxy evidence showed only localised (not global) changes.
| At least Courtney accepts that the Earth's temperature has risen by 0.6 degrees C, accepting a major finding of the IPCC. Courtney's statements regarding carbon dioxide (CO2) and temperature (that 'one follows the other') are partly correct. Increase temperature and the carbon cycle responds: CO2 increases. What drove these changes in the past were long-term (tens of thousands of years) changes in the Earth/solar orbit. However, there is also a proven link that if you increase CO2 you increase the radiative forcing, and temperature increases. Thus any temperature increase will raise CO2 levels even further - a positive feedback effect on top of any human-induced increase in CO2 emissions.
| Who is ignorant of misrepresenting the science, Mr Courtney? With regards to petitions, the Oregon petition that Courtney refers to was organised by a right-wing think-tank that has no scientific credibility; the signatories (including the Drs in MASH and Ginger Spice!), if real, are themselves not scientists (there are not 18,000 climate scientists in the USA).
| Courtney has showed his ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation by saying that people only read the one-page executive summary of the IPCC. If people are to make bold statements about the IPCC reports they should read the reports.
| The climate sceptics say that they do not need to produce evidence because they cannot produce any reliable scientific research to counter the massive amount of peer-reviewed science that supports the IPCC statements. The IPPC reports have shown that global temperature is rising and that this temperature rise is due in part to human activities. That is the scientific basis against which the sceptics need to produce their contrary scientific evidence. Governments, industry, science, society and reality have passed the sceptics by, and they are now clinging to their own propaganda.
| David Viner, UK
| Read on:
| Dr David Viner's previous contribution
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
