EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING: Antarctica’s Larsen B Ice Shelf is likely to shatter into hundreds of icebergs before the end of the decade, according to a new NASA study. Ice shelves are the gatekeepers for glaciers flowing from Antarctica toward the ocean. Without them, glacial ice enters the ocean faster and accelerates the pace of global sea level rise. Photo Courtesy: NSIDC/Ted Scambos
By Steff Gaulter
It’s not often that you get a good laugh whilst reading the newspapers, but recently there’s been an exception. It wasn’t a story about a speeding tortoise or a quote from a random celebrity that raised a smile, but someone inventing a new conspiracy theory.
There have been numerous of these theories over the years, from the claim that the moon landings were faked to the allegation that it was the CIA who shot John F Kennedy. Whether you choose to buy into these theories is, of course, completely up to you, but the new one is surprising because it’s been dreamt up by someone who should really know better.
The claim was from one of the top business advisors to the Australian Prime Minister, a man called Maurice Newman, who’s chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council. He declared that climate change was a hoax dreamt up by the United Nations to create a new world order.
Normally an outburst like this would be enough for other people to gently suggest a referral to a psychologist, but the worrying thing is that Newman is in a very influential position, and he seems to be serious.
Climate change is generally a subject that I try to steer clear from in the Weather Addict, because it stirs up such emotions. One mention of the subject and a meteorologist’s inbox can overflow with angry e-mails.
It never fails to surprise me that this subject is quite so emotive, after all, would it make anyone angry if I said their oven heated up the kitchen? So what’s the difference if I say that adding certain gases to the atmosphere heats up the world? At no point have I said that you should stop it, or that it’s your fault, but you can be sure that by now, some readers will have got really quite upset.
I believe the reason for this anger might be partly to do with politics, as in the UK we are forced to recycle by law and over the past few years the government has invested heavily in green projects. The fact we don’t have the option to opt out, makes some people feel backed into a corner.
There’s also the issue of the media. Far too much air-time (or written-space) is given to people with ‘alternative’ theories. It still seems that in this day and age, there needs to be an ‘opposing view’ every time climate change is mentioned. For a meteorologist, it’s quite exasperating: aren’t we past this? After all, does there still need to be an opposing view to people who claim smoking isn’t bad for you? At what point can we drop the need to hunt for a sceptic?
The fact that this new claim about climate change comes from a political adviser in Australia makes it slightly easier to understand, after all the Australian government isn’t exactly known for being environmentally friendly. The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has previously dismissed evidence of climate change as “absolute crap” (pardoning his French). It makes sense that he would share a similar point of view as his hand-picked advisers.
The thing that puzzles me about the whole situation is that Australia is actually one of the countries that is most vulnerable to climate change. Australia is second only to Antarctica as the driest continent on earth. Water availability is under enormous pressure and the country regularly suffers droughts and bush fires.
Despite the stance by the Australian government, this is what we know: certain gases (called greenhouse gases) act to raise the temperature of the earth by trapping the heat in our atmosphere. This isn’t a new theory, it’s been known about for around 200 years. We are pumping these gases into the atmosphere in unprecedented amounts, so of course the temperature of the earth is rising.
Where the proper scientific debate is now taking place is in determining what the rising global temperature will do. Perhaps it will cause more low cloud, which will keep the temperatures higher during the night, and therefore the average temperature during each month would soar. Or perhaps the melting of the Arctic ice will trigger more severe winters in the northern hemisphere and the temperatures will lower a touch. Either way, the climate is changing.
It seems counter-productive for vulnerable Australia to be one of the world’s worst greenhouse gas polluters per capita. After all, as the world continues to warm, the country’s wildfires and droughts are expected to become more severe and the strain on the country’s water resource is expected to increase. It would be more logical for Australia to take a hard line against climate change instead of denying its existence. Logical, and arguably, rather more helpful for those who live there.
