Thursday, September 01, 2005

Of course, global warming is to blame...

To blame for what? Well, pretty much everything. Latest on the list, predictably, is hurricane Katrina. Sir David King, never one to miss an opportunity to push home the message, is quoted from an interview on Channel 4 News in yesterday’s Independent (King: global warming may be to blame):

"The increased intensity of hurricanes is associated with global warming," Professor King told Channel 4 News yesterday. "We have known since 1987 the intensity of hurricanes is related to surface sea temperature and we know that, over the last 15 to 20 years, surface sea temperatures in these regions have increased by half a degree centigrade.

"So it is easy to conclude that the increased intensity of hurricanes is associated with global warming."

Yes, but perhaps Sir David draws the conclusion too easily, because it supports a political agenda. Looking at longer-term evidence suggests that neither the intensity nor frequency of hurricanes is currently out of the ordinary. Looking back over the last century, it seems that Atlantic hurricanes were more frequent in the 1930s, and that the end of the 20th Century was a relatively quiet time. In the last few years, we seem to have experienced a cyclical increase in activity. At the same time, the populations and property values in vulnerable areas have increased, meaning that landfall by hurricanes can cause greater damage and loss of life.

Klaus Topfer, head of the UN’s environment programme, and another serial offender, has similarly placed the blame for this year’s floods in Northern Europe and drought and forest fires in Southern Europe on global warming (that is, manmade climate change). His interview with FT Germany was also reported on the Euractiv website (UN director links natural disasters and climate change).

Climate changes, however they are induced, are bound to affect local weather patterns. But, rather than engage in gloom-mongering in a vain attempt to force down emissions of carbon dioxide, we should be putting our efforts into adapting. It’s pretty certain that a high proportion of our energy needs in 2050 will be generated other than from fossil fuels. These changes will be driven by economics and Mankind’s inventiveness. In the meantime, cherry picking the facts and spinning them to meet a politically correct agenda is unscientific and benefits no-one.


Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?