Into a puzzle of climate issues

Into a puzzle of www.thebeijingnews.com climate · 2007-4-225: 58: 29 ·

Source: Beijing News

When leading meteorologists had solved a problem, and that another rebuttal argument ran out.

But the media have become accustomed to the authority of the science and art, I don't know how to report such controversy.

Over the last century, Sweden chemists thought Infante ·

Ah-Arrhenius (SvanteArrhenius) research that led to the Earth's past glaciation occurred due to atmospheric carbon dioxide content changes.

Unfortunately, the Arrhenius was wrong.

Now we know that the "Earth orbit changes" instead of "carbon dioxide content of change" is the cause of the end of the ice ages. But Anita Arrhenius could inadvertently become a "global warming" first augur: in his papers published in 1896, he proposed an increase in CO2 concentrations will cause the Earth to heat up. At that time, the Arrhenius's most peers think he is wrong, and to this day, still has a small part of the peer does not agree with his point of view. Today those agreed and disagreed with relatively few number of scientists, but they are always the reason that we cannot ignore their existence.

IPCC Fourth assessment report of the scientific foundation for the most part, the temperature rise: great possibilities and human activities generate greenhouse gas emissions.

On the same day, the famous "global warming" opponents, MIT Professor of meteorology, retorted that Lindzen: "in my opinion, this is like a group of children locked himself to a black room, and then look to what their own scare into. " When mainstream meteorologists via model to simulate the latest climate change, they consider into Earth orbit, solar energy, volcanic eruptions, etc. But some people jump out immediately that you did not consider the cosmic rays. And then there are a number of the cosmic rays cause the theory of global warming today. Water vapor can cause the greenhouse effect, it was considered that the existing climate change model for water vapour considered insufficient. In this way, when leading meteorologists had solved a problem, and that another rebuttal argument ran out. In science, solving the puzzle may take time, but the media have you will need to face another puzzle that they have become accustomed to the authority of the science and art, used to report that undisputed facts, but I don't know how to report on such contentious issues.

When the media would like a phenomenon associated with climate change, for example, when "the increase in extreme weather phenomena," and "global climate change"? scientific conclusion is "may", the maximum is "very likely", this is not up, typically only hearsay message deserve such wording.

But when they talk about a consistent with scientific predictions, for example, sea level rise will cause including China Shanghai, cities face the risk of drowning, sounds and too alarmist.

After a puzzle easier to solve, when media are aware of the relevant scientific and technological uncertainty and dispute might just be the most attractive part of readers, when they learn the process for the science debate coverage, this puzzle is not going to have.

□ Cirsii (Beijing reporter)