Letter to the Editor, Business Times 9 Apr 10;
IT IS not worth the while to address the individual points raised in the polemical opinion piece 'End of the IPCC: one mistake too many' by S Fred Singer (BT, April 7), which reflect the views of a small group of anthropogenic climate change 'sceptics', many of whom are not climate scientists.
The so-called 'errors' have already been dealt with officially and found not to change the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The unsubstantiated claim of a 'conspiracy', on the other hand, is rather peculiar and perhaps reflects the shallowness of scientific arguments of the 'sceptics'. The known association of this group with conservative think tanks and the oil industry also does not help their case.
One could then equally argue that the oil lobby has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, which relies on hydrocarbon products as the main source of the world's electrical energy and heating fuels.
Despite all the noise and public exposure given by willing news outlets, the 'sceptics' so far have provided no reason to discard an explanation of the late 20th century warming that is consistent with theory, models and observations - namely, increased greenhouse gases.
This is a view endorsed by nearly every major national science academy and meteorological institute in the world. Indeed, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, quite independently of the IPCC, announced in January that 2009 was the second warmest year in the modern record.
The analysis also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880. In December 2009, the UK Meteorological Office and World Meteorological Organization announced that the previous decade was the warmest since records began.
Therefore, the announcement of the end of the IPCC is both premature and pretentious, and completely pre-empts the outcome of the UN official enquiry.
Matthias Roth
Associate Professor
Department of Geography
National University of Singapore
Climate change sceptics have it wrong
posted by Ria Tan at 4/09/2010 07:02:00 AM
labels climate-pact, global