Comparing Views on Climate Change
...Howard Curnow
Recent news on energy

This piece appeared in the Methodist Recorder, 17 Apr 15, and is republished here by permission of the editor and Howard Curnow.

The article on the front page of 'Methodist Recorder' (March 23) was headed "Cyclone - stark warning".

We would all support Christian Aid and All We Can in their efforts to assist those who have suffered from Cyclone Pam, but many would question whether its cause was human-induced climate change and whether the actions being urged upon governments are well-advised.

The article included the statement "....scientists were clear that it (climate change) made extreme events like Cyclone Pam more likely".

It also claimed that 2ºC rise in global temperature is "...the point beyond which scientists predict global chaos....".

The impression is given that these are the views accepted by all scientists, but they are not - far from it. And it is not good enough to suggest, as some do, that any scientists who question the International Panel on Climate Change "consensus" do so only because their funding comes from those who have a vested interest in the use of oil and coal. The validity of the conclusions of scientific research do not depend on who has paid for it.

In an earlier Methodist Recorder (27 Feb) it was reported that All We Can had "welcomed the pledge of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to work together across party lines to tackle climate change".

However, what they have pledged themselves to do seems to involve a sizeable measure of wishful thinking.

They assume we know how to limit any possible rises ini global temperatures; they assume that carbon budgets and carbon trading will be effective in reducing emissions (experience to date makes that questionable) and they fail to acknowledge that for the foreseeable future the use of coal cannot be phased out if we are to continue to have a constant and reliable supply of electricity.

HC

Back to top