Right, I’ve had enough of returning to my blog just to find I’ve warbled on extensively about events in my personal life over the course of the previous evening. It depresses me. I’d be suprised if it doesn’t bore whoever reads this. I’m drunk. The details of our own lives are to each of us more important than anything that happens in the wider world. But I’m not happy coming back here in the mornings to reread a lengthy overhaul of what I’ve been up to. My life is not that important to you. Some people have more fascinating, saucy, and well-remembered lives than mine. I love reading their stories. I’m happy, but I want to be broader, graver, and more earnest. Oscar Wilde, never ever to be underestimated, once said that all bad poetry is in earnest. I hope all of the best writing and poetry is in earnest too. This probably won’t make sense tomorrow. Here are some links about climate change….
First, the last review from New Scientist, providing the strong counter-arguments to most of the ‘climate-change conspiracy’ myths…New Scientist are sometimes sensationalist and ‘pop-science’, but they simplify the complicated for ignorants like me, their heart is in the right place, and they get some great folks writing for them. For those of you who are not involved in research in the climate-change field, but still dissent with the majority body of academics who consider that humankind is causing global warming, there was an excellent quote from Bertrand Russell in a recent article by Sean Gonsalves which I saw at commondreams.org - “Clearly, if you are going to believe anything outside your own experience, you should have some reason for believing it. Usually, the reason is authority… . It is true that most of us must inevitably depend upon authority for most of our knowledge.”
It’s not often that I can clearly perceive what counts as ‘authority’. But I believe in this case the IPCC and supporting scientists are too numerous, dedicated, and genuinely respected to be part of some conspiracy. As I watch the KZN summers grow colder and more misty, I say we should believe them. Here’s the article from New Scientist:
Then there’s also some recent climate news from the BBC – it seems that the U.S. is trying to block sections of a new draft bill on climate change, which it was hoped all of the G8 members would sign. If the revisions requested by the U.S. are implemented, the bill will contain no firm commitments to reducing emissions or improving energy efficiency. This is similar to what happened with the bill presented to the 2005 G8 summit. There may well be prudent reasons, or at least reasons beyond industrial greed, which dissuade the US from committing to firm targets. If anyone knows where these reasons can be found, or if they have been delivered as part of a speech etc, please send me the link or let me know.
Here’s the article: US seeks G8 climate text changes