Data error

It may interest you to know that many professionals in my fields are uneasy at the totalitarian approach adopted by politicians, the media and government departments, in order to force acceptance of climate change “initiatives”.

There are two fundamental points to understand. Firstly, the whole edifice of both human induced warming (not necessarily the same thing as climate change, as pointed out by Nigel Lawson) and climate change projections is dependent on computer models. These are very sophisticated (and have cost millions of pounds to develop), but despite this sophistication, are still approximations of the natural systems. Secondly, the future scenarios of extremes are almost impossible to turn into sensible information that can be used in design, e.g., if the average summer temperature may (not will) increase by 2.5 degrees C by 2080, will this be caused by an overall increase in daily mean temperatures, or heat-wave maximum temperatures being elevated, or minimum daily temperatures increasing? Each of these would require a different response in preparing designs for mitigation.

The emphasis on CO2 concentration is to my mind misplaced. On the geological time scale CO2 concentration and global temperatures have varied without the interference of man. The converse approach being adopted by politicians, which assumes a controlling effect can be induced by limiting or reducing CO2 emissions and concentration, is a naive, if not arrogant assumption.

The repeated (ad nauseam) contention that climate change is already happening, invariably comes from a highly selective choice of events and situations. Despite the media grabbing posturing of the prime minister and his deputy during the 2000-2001 floods, neither the rainfall nor the floods at that time were “unprecedented”. Thus they could not be considered a “wake-up” call. What is really at issue is the impact of these and similar events, and I would contend that energies and finances would be better used in closely reviewing design, planning and management to improve the capacity to adapt and mitigate. These two approaches have served us well throughout civilisation, otherwise we would still be a species of hunter-gatherers.

One closing point: as an alternative to the graph of CO2 concentration against temperature, why not use population? Rampant population growth is the cause of increased emissions, depletion of water resources and desertification, and the reason why meteorological events, which are within the ranges of historic variability, are having increasing economic and humanitarian impact. As Tony Juniper recently stated in an interview “buried” on a BBC World Service programme, no politician would dare to suggest a curb on population.

James Dent, Hadleigh, Suffolk