Credibility in climate change debate

The disparaging remarks on climate change by Joe Calleja and Eva Ferraz (The Sunday Times, December 13) deserve comment.

The internet is a prolific source of pseudo-science for people in need of misleading arguments.

Just by Googling appropriate keywords one instantly obtains ammunition for any argument (or counter-argument) that a debater can wish for.

Sorry, but the simple add-water-and-mix approach of just randomly quoting a certain Dr Nils-Axel Mörner's factoids simply won't do.

It is better to pay attention to consensus and the science behind it than bogus stuff on the internet. Climate change is neither a question of faith nor of proof, but of probabilities as assessed by scientific method and agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists.

Admittedly some oppose the climate change prediction - and these certainly make a lot of disagreeable noise.

Now, back to Dr Mörner; all that was retrieved was a stupendously boastful account of his view of things. The alarm bells already start ringing when this 'scientist' grandiosely introduces himself as a sea-level specialist and that there are many good sea-level people in the world... "but no one who's beaten me". This kind of arrogance should already put perceptive people on their guard for bogus nonsense.

Much in the same way, Mr Calleja's portentous reference to "this massive anthropological global warming (AGW) swindle" immediately punctures his credibility and much of his anti-climate change argumentation is spurious.

The scientific prediction of climate change is not based on an extrapolation of past phenomena. It is scientific prediction based on an unprecedented man-induced phenomenon.

Random weather blips such as 'hot' 1990s summers, 'cooler' winters in the 2000s, or even high ambient temperatures thousands of years ago are meaningless.

Mörner's loose talk about sea levels is irrelevant because, to put it simply, sea levels have not started to rise yet. The sea may not start to rise significantly for many years to come. So 'proof' based on minor changes in sea levels as observed by Dr Mörner are futile and meaningless.

Climate change will only become perceptible in decades rather than years. So Dr Mörner and our correspondents have completely missed the point; we are not talking about "now". It is still a scientifically calculated probability. This probability is so high that it should serve as a wake-up call to everybody. The risks are too great to ignore what the majority of scientists agree upon.

In the improbable event that climate change were not to occur in spite of spiralling CO2 levels, then ocean acidification will ultimately get us. The acidity of our oceans has increased steadily since the start of the industrial revolution.

This is the first time in tens of millions of years that oceanic acidification is happening faster than the natural buffering capacity of the oceans can reverse it.

Oceanic acidity is now one-third higher than it was in the mid-1700s. So, if CO2 emissions remain high or increase, life in our oceans, a source of roughly half our food, stands to be destroyed if climate change doesn't get us first.

Cutting down on fossil fuel use is important as a means of combating the adverse health effects of fossil fuel pollution. The British Medical Association acknowledges climate predictions but also argues that "what is good for the climate is also good for health".

Given the immediate and serious health threat from Malta's crisis-level of pollution, this alone is enough reason for Malta to take heed and cut down on fossil fuel use.