The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Vaclav Klaus: I ask myself several questions. Let's put them in the proper sequence:
Is global warming a reality?
If it is a reality, is it man-made?
If it is a reality, is it a problem? Will the people in the world, and now I have to say "globally", better-off or worse-off due to small increases of global temperature?
If it is a reality, and if it is a problem, can men prevent it or stop it? Can any reasonable cost-benefit analysis justify anything - within the range of current proposals - to be done just now?
Surprisingly, we can say yes - with some degree of probability - only to the first question. To the remaining three my answer is no. And I am not alone in saying that. We are, however, still more or less the silent or silenced majority.
Klaus outlines the problem which remains the problem in Climate Science - but then spins it out of control.
I strongly feel it has not been possible to convincingly show how CO2 relates and scales to other climate forcings and hence how large its sensitivity is. The knowledge on the system as a whole is to this day incomplete.
But: Anthropogenic CO2 leads to warming. End of discussion. Yet because Klaus lodges to the above problem, he spins all of the global warming into other contributing factors - it makes him a classic denialist. Here's my thing: It does not matter anymore to what level CO2 scales - we know it is a greenhouse gas, the current warming is causing enough imbalances on this overcrowded planet, let's not even risk another contributor to forcings especially if we don't understand what it exactly does.
Perhaps I should have poured that into a question...
[2.] If it is a reality, is it man-made?
IPCC scientists feel somewhat differently about this since the last report considers as very probable (>90% certainty) that greenhouse gases are the cause of most of the warming incurred over the last 50 years. This of course doesn't mean that our knowledge of the forcings is complete.
Klaus, like all the other deniers, conveniently uses all the various stages of denial in the course of an argument, which shows they know nothing and yet, refuse everything. The comment about the silenced majority is pure demagoguery (besides being factually wrong): as if a "silenced majority" could be expected to have an opinion differing from that of the scientists on a topic as complex as climate change.
by Oui - Dec 5 9 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Dec 9
by Oui - Dec 95 comments
by Oui - Dec 814 comments
by Oui - Dec 620 comments
by Oui - Dec 612 comments
by Oui - Dec 59 comments
by Oui - Dec 44 comments
by Oui - Dec 21 comment
by Oui - Dec 167 comments
by Oui - Dec 16 comments
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Nov 2838 comments
by Oui - Nov 2713 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 243 comments
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments