The
overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human-caused climate
change is happening. Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an
irrational rejection of well-estabilished science. This virulent strain of
anti-science infects the halls of Congress, the pages of leading newpapers
and what we see in TV , leading to the appearance of a debate where none
should exist.
In
fact, there is broad agreement among climate scientists not only that climate
change is real, (a survey and a review of the scientific literature published
say about 97 percent agree) but that we must respond to the dangers of a
warming planet. If one is looking for real differences among mainstream scientists,
they can be found on two fronts: the precise implications of those higher
temperatures, and which technologies and policies offer the best solution to
reducing, on a global scale, the emission of greenhouse gases.
For
example, should we go full-bore on nuclear power? Invest in and deploy
renewable Energy – wind, solar and geothermal – on a huge scale? Price carbon
emissions through cap-and-trade legislation or by imposing a carbon tax? Until
the public fully understands the danger of our present trajectory, those debate
are likely to continue to founder.
This
is where scientists come in. In my view, it is no longer acceptable for
scientists to remain on the sidelines. I had no choice but to enter the fray. I
was hounded by elected officials, threatened with violence and more, after a
single study I co-wrote a decade and a half ago found that the Northern
Hemisphere’s average warmth had no precedent in at least the past 1,000 years.
Back in 2003, when asked in a Senate hearing to comment on a metter of policy,
I risponded that “I am not a specialist in public policy” And it would not “be
useful for me to testify on that.” It is not an uncommon view among scientists
that we potentially compromise our objectivity if we choose to wade into policy
matters or the societal implications of our work. But there is nothing
inappropriate about drawing on our scientific knowledge to speak out about the
very real implications of our research.
If
scientists choose not to engage in the public debate, we leave a vacuum that
will be filled by those whose agenda is one of short-term self-in-terest. In
fact, it would be an abrogation of our responsibility to society if we remained
quiet in the face of such a grave threat.
How
will history judge us if we watch the threat unfold before our eyes, but fail
to comunicate the urgency of acting to avert potential disaster? How would I
explain to the future children of my 8-year-old daughter that their grandfather
saw the threat, but didn’t speak up in time?
Michael E. Mann from International NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/if-you-see-something-say-something.html?_r=0
If you want to know more about Distinguish Professor Michael E. Mann and about the subject please go to the link below
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers-must-stop-distorting-150312836.html?.tsrc=Yahoo
You can also found an italian translation by Angelo Ruggeri in the blog: http//albixpoeti.blog.tiscali.it
