And with it came the controversy. The most controversial conference of the Summer "Weather, Climate and Climate Change: Myths and Realities" held today in Gador, came from the hand of Anton Uriarte, a professor of Geography at the University of the Basque Country, known in skeptical scientific community and for his advocacy of climate change does not deserve the attention, and especially the fear that wakes up in years. The title of his lecture, "Climate Change: miscellaneous for doomsday" leaves no doubt of his position, the opposite of the dominant discourse. Uriarte, who supports his thesis on data from NASA, explains why there is IDEAL to banish the 'schizophrenia' collective activities related to global warming. - What is the position defended?
"What I advocate is that it can be said to be an exaggeration now showing interest in climate change is not as catastrophic as advertised, and neither is well established that CO2 is the culprit of global warming .
- Do you consider yourself a denier of climate change? - No, the word denier do not like. In addition, we are just skeptics who believe that the climate is always changing, it is not that has changed in the last century. What I do deny is that it is established that CO2 is the cause of the last of these changes.
- What, then, the cause of warming?
- For reasons unknown to us, there are natural changes in the planet's cloud cover, changes in ocean currents, changes in solar intensity, ... We do not know much, and it is politically correct to take the blame everything on the C02, but it is not. For example, the change that occurred between 1910 and 1940, could not be due to CO2, and yet there was a warming of about three tenths are the same that have occurred since 1975 until 98. Then there have been times the increase in the C02, for example, between 45 and 75 years, and there was no global warming.
- How much responsibility is the human being in the higher grades? - Well, I must say that a little global warming need not be bad, because it can lead to more rain and more humidity. It is true that the C02 heat, that the skeptics do not deny, but heated in very small proportion, and we all know that. The largest warming of the models - climate - does not rely on CO2, but side effects of increased humidity. As for man, if we leave our mark on the atmosphere, but is small in importance.
- Does the temperature increase is not, then, to be concerned?
- Exactly. They say it's a rapid warming, but it is not. The reality is that since we are 98 high temperature over the past centuries, but is that worse come of age, which is the Little Ice Age of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and since then, we are recovering.
- Does the advance of desertification is also a myth?
- is totally false that deserts are advancing. In the most important, which is the fringe of the Sahel, rainfall is increasing since the 80's. There was a major drought in the 70 and 80, yes, but more because the sea was cold and evaporated little that warming.
- Government measures, Kyoto Protocol ... What's behind all this? - These measures are based on ignorance of politicians. It is also an opportunity, because now it is more appropriate to rate carbon, which is what you use, and favor large companies that are benefiting from emission quotas. (It should be noted that there is a market for buying and selling of CO2 emission rights by companies and governments).
- Both pollute?
- No. And actually the C02 is a pollutant: for every 100,000 molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in the air, every five years added a CO2. Okay, that can produce a warming, but pollution ever: the C02 is the air we breathe.
- Do you consider climate change as the great deception of this decade?
- I think that is the great hoax of the decade, the beginning of the century, and also the end of the century, but fortunately there are more and more people are opening their eyes.
- There should be easy to maintain this discourse ...
- No, it is not easy, we are quite marginal, and we respond with aggression, or we denigrate, or despise. Occurs at all levels.
- Has been strengthened the power of skeptics? Is there and less consensus on the climate issue?
- Yes, but the major political parties continue to have much fear of change, to change what they have always supported: therefore continue to maintain that the C02 is very bad, you have to go to the low carbon economy.
- Do you think that in 20 years discuss climate change?
- I hope not. More and more people attending the data, charts that are 30 inches think what we have raised: one thinks, and sees that 30 inches are nothing, not to frighten anybody, although be the last to convince political parties.
- How to reassure these 'catastrophic' of which you speak?
- The doomsayers are nervous when told that their disaster is not so, because people need to believe in it, and uses global change as the mother of all disasters. But it must be shown with maps, graphs, etc. it is not so bad, that glaciers are not liquefy therefore, that many more people die of cold than heat, and announced a series of disasters are not true to the actual data.
transcribed http://www.ideal.es Writing
0 comments:
Post a Comment