IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) Report and Eco Skeptics

Although I find it always desirable to hear two or more opinions on a matter, it is very strange to read or hear the global warming skeptics preach their doubt. Of course some estimations can be inaccurate or exaggerated in some cases, but to doubt the whole phenomenon is a willful ignorance for some other motives than search for truth.

Some skeptics would be quick to imply that what the doubt is about is actually a causal connection between human activity and global warming. Although this sounds like a less irrational type of skepticism, it is still extremely problematic for many reasons. As is widely known, the findings of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on global warming state that the probability that changes in the climate system are a result of man made increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) concentrations is "very likely larger than 90%". It is to this claim that the eco-skeptics object, many of them claiming this probability is less than 50%.

Now, of course any government or scientist can be wrong. But even without going into the scientific details of the debate, which convince a vast majority of experts in the world that the influence of human element in global warming is indeed beyond reasonable doubt, one can have very good reasons to disregard the claims of the skeptics. Let me state some of these from a "lay" perspective.

First is a very strong degree of agreement among scientists. The report was revised line-by-line, scrutinized by 600 authors, 620 expert reviewers and 113 governments and their teams, not to mention thousands of other scientists around the world who endorse the claims in it. Studied by some of the finest minds in the world, it was approved by vast number of countries, irrespective of their political ideology, economic development or cultural norms. The report is a definitive review of all the available evidence. So, in this case, the very scope of the consensus is a good argument from the perspective of non-experts.

Second: many governments act against their immediate interest when accepting this report and the actions which are recommended with it. It is a difficult task to change the policies and systems of functioning of society. Praxis on which the very economy of the country is based is the toughest one to tackle. Despite that, governments and their hired experts can not but accept the report of IPCC and many also sign their commitment to the duties it implies.

Third: Even if the report would be wrong on any point, it still definitely makes sense to actually go for the changes in lifestyle and economies in order to lessen enormous human CO2 impact. Even if the threat would not be as immediate as it is (many think it is even too late to do something about the global warming at all), the supposed changes of lifestyle are nothing but good in the long term anyway.

So, why this zeal for skepticism? I strongly suspect (if it is not outright obvious), that in most cases there is a selfish interest and determined unwillingness to change behind the "skepticism" about the claims of the IPCC report. Also, the attractiveness of the conspiracy theories, and a great feeling of being in opposition or a rebel to a mainstream culture or thinking will always be "in". So, even active eco-skepticism should not surprise us.

» left by Joel Hendon 3 years 338 days ago.
125 fans.

Good article Gorazd, well written but nevertheless, I disagree with you. You make this statement: "First is a very strong degree of agreement among scientists. The report was revised line-by-line, scrutinized by 600 authors, 620 expert reviewers and 113 governments and their teams, not to mention thousands of other scientists around the world who endorse the claims in it." but you fail to mention a number of scientists who vehemently disagree with those. Also, if you examine those who are behind your stance you will find them rolling in $100. bills and laughing all the way to the bank with tax monies from people all over the world. The ones who disagree, not strangely, are most often the ones not dependent upon grants for their sustenance. You also stated that it was studied by some of the finest minds in the world. A man with a PhD in some science has no finer mind than anyone else, and they are as susceptible to deception as anyone else. They have proven that with their fraudulent doctrine of origins and evolution which are totally unsubstantiated. I suggest you read and article by James Smith here on searchwarp entitled "Man-Made Global Warming Is Tulip Bulb Mania"

Respond to this comment