63
of which skeptics deny as concrete and argue inconclusive results which can be interpreted in any number
of ways. Unfortunately for them however, this just isn’t the case. In 1988 an Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) was established with the aim of independently reviewing all evidence pertaining to
climate change in order to advise on what action, if any, was needed. So where do they stand? Well, they
have concluded with greater than 90% probability that most of the observed warming since the mid-20th
Century is due to human activity. Their projections suggest that warming over the 21st Century was at a
more rapid rate than at any point over at least the last 10,000 years.
So if it is obvious to Scientists that something is happening as a result of human activity, why is there even
need for a debate? If the evidence is so clear, how can there be skeptics? The answer to that of course is
simple enough... Money!
It would be very cynical of me to point out that the majority of the argument against climate change comes
from multi-billion dollar global corporations hell bent on profiteering at any cost, but could that be right?
Could these skeptics be fighting a propaganda war to keep their bank accounts healthy at the cost of the
natural world?
In its simplest form, the debate on climate change can be summarised as follows:•
There are two possible scenarios, either our actions are increasing global warming and wreaking
havoc on our climate, or we are having no additional impact. This means that global warming is either true,
or it is false.
•
For each scenario there are two out outcomes. Either we act, or we don’t act on climate change.
The table below outlines the consequences of each outcome in each scenario in order to highlight what I
believe to be the fundamental reasoning behind the need for a debate on climate change.
ICY SCIENCE | QTR 1 2014