You might be surprised to find out that those words came from none other than a scientist who sat on the panel named co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore:
Despite enviro-warriors’ best efforts to suppress dissent from “deniers,” the debate continues: Nagging questions keep arising over the causes of global warming, its long-term effects and whether in fact humans can influence environmental outcomes, no matter how many billions we spend.
Most media genuflect before Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth.” Every shrinking minuscule Pacific atoll, every less-than-roly-poly Polar bear is front page news. But facts that don’t support, or that counter the “sky is falling” scenario tend to be ignored or shuffled off to journalistic Siberia.
An illustrative case in point is a thought-provoking fragment of ephemera tucked away on the back page of the October 25 Wall St Journal (WSJ).
Does the name John Christy ring a bell? It should if you care about the environment, so colour yourself embarrassed if it doesn’t. He’s the real scientist from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who was Al Gore’s co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. In their “Notable and Quotable” section, the WSJ excerpted a few telling moments of dialogue from a post-Nobel CNN interview with him.
From it we learn that yes, it is true the ice at the North Pole has been diminished to a record minimum. No surprise there: Who can watch the news for a week without viewing at least one Bermuda-size chunk of Arctic ice shearing off a towering ‘berg and plunging dramatically into the sea?
Scary stuff. Except that it isn’t, because according to Christy, the extent of Antarctic ice — which accounts for a full 90% of the earth’s ice ( i.e. the Arctic contains a mere 10%) — has just reached its all-time maximum. Thickening ice may not be an ambitious journalist’s money shot, but it’s still — or should be — environmental news the public deserves to know about.
And speaking of ice, from his frosty tone, I think it’s fair to say that Christy’s a bit miffed at sharing the Nobel with Al Gore (“I always thought that — I may sound like the Grinch that stole Christmas here — prizes were given for performance, and not for promotional activities”), not to mention discomfited at being linked with the hyperbole of An Inconvenient Truth: “I don’t see very much effect in trying to scare people into not using energy when it is the very basis of how we can live in our society….Mother Nature is so complex, and so the uncertainties are great, and then to hear someone speak with such certainty and such confidence about what the climate is going to do is…annoying to me.”
Christy confirms that of course carbon dioxide levels are going up, and indeed temperatures are rising. But he categorically refutes Al Gore’s conclusions: “I’m one of the few people in the world that actually builds these climate data sets – [and] we don’t see the catastrophic changes that are being promoted all over the place.”
Score a point for the “deniers” — that’s to say, those of us who think climate change has been business as usual on this here planet since time immemorial and is not to be feared so much as adapted to, even though we should live as cleanly and greenly as possible.
As John Stossel has said, the debate is not over.
That's the first thing i've read that has made me question this issue at all.. though i still must say i lean towards the global warming theory-- i dont think it's an emminent threat at this very moment or anything-- (as gore painted it to be...)but i do think it is occuring to a degree... i think the statement that we should all live a little greener says it best though... we do what we can when we can :) kudos for this.... but i wouldnt write it out of your mind just yet (though i dont think you will) :)
Posted by: Just Surfing In | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 01:25 AM