Skip to main content

I wish I weren't a climate change pessimist

The International Climate Congress in Copenhagen this week has stepped up the pressure on those who want to pretend that climate change doesn't exist.

Despite the mockery that has been aimed at those predicting sea level rise in the past, we now hear of catastrophic rises of 1 metre or more by the end of the century.

It seems it is now 'almost impossible' to restrict temperature rises this century to two degrees - itself a target that would cause significant problems in many countries. Figures as high as six degrees have been bandied about. This would truly be devastating - see Mark Lynas' book on the subject. And the increase of carbon dioxide dissolved in the seas giving extra acidity is threatening to endanger many aquatic species.

The repeated message is 'things are worse than we thought they were.' Those who complain about the accuracy of climate models rarely seem to notice that when they are inaccurate they almost always err on the side of caution (arguably, in part, due to political pressure), so things turn out worse than predicted.

I'm afraid I'm a climate change pessimist. I believe that things are going to get worse, and that governments will only take serious action - rather than fiddling around with minor efforts that are more posturing than practical - when things go seriously wrong. I really wish this weren't the case. I don't want to be negative about this. The scientists could have it wrong. Things could magically correct themselves without big efforts on our parts. But the outlook is undoubtedly grim.

(Photo by www.freefoto.com)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense