Straits Times 16 Nov 09;
I REFER to last Monday's letter by Mr Harry Mason, 'Public need to know the facts'. I am appalled to read such misinformation about climate change.
The crucial Copenhagen summit is less than a month away and a fair and ambitious global deal must emerge from it to tackle the increasingly urgent issue of climate change. At this moment, we should not go into denial or promote misconceptions.
The general consensus on climate change is clear and unequivocal. Over the past 150 years, human civilisation has allowed carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to reach around 390 parts per million, the highest level in more than 800,000 years. A correlated and consistent increased trend in temperature has also been observed.
The earth's climate has changed many times in its history, but the current observable changes are occurring at a much faster rate, resulting in numerous negative impacts which are already seen today and will only worsen in the future.
The number of scientific institutions which agree that climate change is human-induced are plenty. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an independent body consisting of over 2,000 scientists, concluded this in its 2007 peer-reviewed report. Volcanic and solar flare activity have already been discounted as possible factors.
Furthermore, many prominent national and international science academies have concluded that the world must take serious action to avoid the wide-ranging deleterious impacts of climate change.
There has been no vested interests or media green hype over climate change, as Mr Mason suggests. If this was the case, measures taken to tackle the problem now would not be so woefully inadequate.
A strong signal from Copenhagen to limit greenhouse gas emissions will allow the world to become truly sustainable, weaning us away from dirty fossil fuels, transforming the entire economic structure of the world, and creating numerous opportunities for us to emerge from the current economic crisis.
Solving the climate crisis will also have many other co-benefits by improving energy security and access, increasing food security and sustainable agriculture as well as more concerted biodiversity protection. There is not only an environmental imperative to take action, but also a social, economic and moral one to make the world more equitable and prosperous for all humanity.
Lee Zhe Yu
Get all the facts about climate change first before taking a stand
Straits Times Forum 18 Nov 09;
THE rebuttal from Mr Lee Zhe Yu on Monday ("Why it is crucial to act quickly on climate change") to Mr Harry Mason's letter ("Public need to know the facts", Nov 9) is insufficient to disprove Mr Mason's observations as "misinformation about climate change".
Mr Mason was advocating for more public debate on the global warming issue so that Singaporeans can then make informed choices on the true state of affairs. Mr Lee's argument that "the general consensus on climate change is clear and unequivocal" hardly qualifies as valid evidence to support the scientific truth. It could, instead, prove Mr Mason's point that "the global warming saga is a sorry affair of apparently deliberate media and scientific misinformation".
Just because an opinion is shared by the majority does not make it any sounder.
Mr Lee's subsequent argument that "the number of scientific institutions which agree that climate change is human-induced are plenty", followed by the quoting of an independent scientific body comprising more than 2,000 scientists and "many prominent national and international science academies", is, at best, an attempt to "quote the authority". This in itself offers no substantial counter-argument to Mr Mason's assertion that climate change might not be human-induced.
To Mr Mason's opinion that there has been vested interest in the environmental discourse, Mr Lee argued that there has been "no vested interests or media green hype over climate change" simply because "if this was the case, measures taken to tackle the problem now would not be so woefully inadequate". This is once again inadequate and unconvincing.
During my university days, I came across academic papers that argued that the environmental crisis is an attempt by the developed world to "subjugate" the developing world by curbing their productions. Not politically correct, I am sure. Others predict the near end of the world given the way we use up resources. Which theory is closest to the truth? There is no clear indication.
I am not in either camp, but I second Mr Mason's point that it is vital for all to acquire as many facts as possible in any debate before stating the unequivocal. No one has the right to claim that one's opinion is the final word and should not state that the other party's opinions are "misinformation", unless they can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, which is unlikely in the case of science anyway.
Lee Khum Thong
