Yeahhhhh! Another of my warnings against mindless global warming panic has made it to The Star.
This time it’s much more neutral than my previous one. But if serves its purpose, to provide a counter-balance to the all-too-common global warming alarmist letters and news reports. And they kept a whole lot of it too, only a few lines removed!
If you’ve been following my posts in the Global Warming Fears category, you might notice some familiar (okay okay, recycled) material - such as Al Gore’s bloated, carbon dioxide gaseous hypocrisy or the global cooling scare of the ’70s.
My dad said it’s a great letter, and I’m proud to have it in print.
Remember: Learn the fatcs before you run around screaming your head off, and dragging other people to run in circles as well!
It is sometimes said, “Better safe than sorry!”. But we must not forget another cautionary tale – the one about Chicken Little and the sky that was reputedly falling. At the end of the day, it will not just be our time that is wasted by baseless paranoia about invisible dangers possibly-perhaps-maybe hanging above our heads. (My ending quote that they removed from the published version, hehe!)
Thursday April 12, 2007
Give us solid facts on global warming
I AGREE with Dr David Hill’s call to set up a global advisory body that is completely impartial and independent (The Star, April 10).
We the public have the right to know the bare facts about global warming clearly, understandably and objectively – not just the opinions of lead proponents or opponents of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming theory.
If the accusation can be made that certain parties (such as heavy industries) have a vested interest in watering down the UN report on global-warming risks, a counter-accusation can be made that certain other parties (such as climate scientists and environmentalists) have a vested interest in playing up the public’s perception of global-warming dangers.
What we usually read in the media is how terrible the effects of global warming are going to be, and how certain parties are selfishly trying to cover up information about global-warming dangers. But there is nary a word about falling temperatures in parts of the Antarctic, or conflicting measurements of the change in global temperatures.
All we ask for are solid facts about global warming, its causes and its effects – not computer model predictions and possibly-perhaps-maybe scenarios!
If computer models and climatologists cannot even accurately forecast what the local weather will be like in the next few weeks, how much trust can we put in their global predictions for the next century? Those in Johor still remember the repeated floods, and how people went back to their homes too early because the heavy rains were “predicted” to have stopped.
Nobody is even sure if global warming is truly caused by humans. And lead proponents of stopping global warming aren’t really doing a good job in convincing the sceptics.
While Al Gore spreads his message of combating global warming, his mansion is consuming more than 20 times the energy of the average American home. Every time he flies around the world to attend special screenings of An Inconvenient Truth, he burns huge amounts of carbon-emitting jet fuel.
Are we then supposed to listen and nod our heads attentively when certain celebrities and politicians tell us to reduce our resource consumption and cut down our carbon emissions in order to save the world? Do they even believe themselves that global warming poses genuine dangers?
If global warming is human-caused and will bring catastrophes unto us all, then we must stand united and act decisively. It would be unethical and outright suicidal not to do so.
However, if it is not the danger that some parties make it out to be, then it would be similarly irresponsible to waste time, attention and resources on initiatives with vague benefits such as the Kyoto Protocol, which would have a minimal effect on global temperature, even if global warming really were human-caused in the first place.
Such resources could be far better spent on other humanitarian aid campaigns that are proven to be effective, such as providing clean water and malaria control.
And is it even remotely possible that the worldwide scientific consensus on climate change could be wrong about global warming? For the record, back in the 1970s there were already strong warnings about global climate change.
Only back then, the paranoia was about global cooling. Those fears were subsequently proven false, and global cooling is now regarded as a foolish blunder. Today, we are instead concerned about the threat of global warming, which pundits tell us surely must be true!
Will people 100 years from now – the same generation that is predicted to suffer immeasurably from global warming – look back and sigh disappointedly at the trillions we wasted while running scared from phantom fears?
SCOTT THONG YU YUEN,