Following on from Heresy's letter (and our subsequent blog post here) to News Weekly, they've followed up that effort with another stellar effort, stunning in its ignorance of fact. You can read it here.
Heresy again replied (see below) and this is the last time we'll do that, because Heresy has now realised he is fighting a losing battle against such stupidity - the sooner these dinosaurs disappear from the Earth, the better. Our time is wasted, so we'll be deploying it in a more inefficient manner henceforth. Unfortunately for these people, the argument has moved beyond a "Yes versus No" one to one of "How bad will it be?".
Our response:
Heresy again replied (see below) and this is the last time we'll do that, because Heresy has now realised he is fighting a losing battle against such stupidity - the sooner these dinosaurs disappear from the Earth, the better. Our time is wasted, so we'll be deploying it in a more inefficient manner henceforth. Unfortunately for these people, the argument has moved beyond a "Yes versus No" one to one of "How bad will it be?".
Our response:
Sir,
regarding Peter Westmore's article "Arctic melting..." Nov 22, 2008 - you continue to misrepresent data in a form that is egregious in its ignorance of both statistical theory and fact.
I realise that this will be a wasted effort once again, but I provide countering facts to your article using data over a much longer period than your 1 year, and where possible using scientific organisations unlikely to have a vested interest beyond recording statistics:
1. Polar bear numbers since the 1970s have increased due to conservation efforts not increased sea ice - overall their numbers are decreasing again due to lack of adequate habitat: see here http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/Polar_Bear_%20Status_Assessment.pdf - doesn't sound like the utopian "no adverse impact to flora and fauna" you describe.
2. You can not pick two close discrete points of data and claim a long-term trend based on this; as I have said before it's dishonest and incorrect; sea ice is getting lower in summer - you would expect summer to suffer first as it is more marginal - see http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ and http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/legrande_02/
3. Summer polar ice, when compared to the 1979-2000 mean, has been the lowest on record the last two years - that 2008 was higher than 2007 does not disavow this fact - the trend remains intact.
4. Temperatures continue to trend upwards, see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/. Please stop using satellite data as a means for proving cooling. It is a poor means of measurement. As the atmosphere grows denser from more moisture, it increases its shielding capability, making the Earth appear cooler from space when in actual fact the heat is being absorbed into the ocean creating a positive (bad) feedback.
Further:
1. You don't need a marked increase in temperatures to cause catastrophic change; 2-3 degrees will do. Snowlines up, alpine habitat destroyed, wetlands in trouble, Barrier Reef in trouble due to increased ocean acidity and temperature.
2. In regard of the above; the carbon we pumped into the atmosphere 20 years ago until today will add to the CO2 load for the next 20 years or so - it is not a boolean switch we can turn off - the worst is yet to come.
3. There are an estimated 2 Billion Chinese and Indian middle class yearning for the consumer-driven western way of life (read pollution).
4. Picking one scientist to quote to back your point is not what I would call consensus.
5. Further increases in atmospheric temperatures will unlock a predicted 1000 Gigatons of Methane (CH4) from Arctic permafrosts - methane is 20 times more dangerous than CO2 and that is more CO2 equivalent than in the entire atmosphere.
The climate is an amazingly complex thing, we don't know for sure what will happen but this all comes down to risk Peter. What would you rather: if you're wrong and we've done nothing, it'll be too late. If I'm wrong, I'll look stupid, but the worst I'll have done is removed inefficient polluting industries addicted to cheap energy like crack addicts (or forced them to pay the real cost to the community) but also have created many, many jobs and innovation in removing man from being a slave to non-renewable resources in green industries. Hmmmm.
The argument has moved from Yes versus No. It is now a question of "How bad will it be." You might like to read "Hot, Flat and Crowded" by Thomas Friedmann to avail yourself of some facts and figures.
Cheers and thanks for the chance to reply
Tim Marsh
Director, Heresy Snowboarding
Disclaimer: I have a vested interest in the alpine industry but I have a vested interest in the Earth as a human who wishes his children to see a clean healthy planet
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment