You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘UEA’ tag.

I have likened the climategate scandal to the war in Iraq, because somewhere along the line mistakes were made by those leading the campaigns and gambles on information were made.

Leading organisations got to a point where they had to make definitive decisions, and in hindsight the whole strategy and approach has proved that the decision making processes were completely at fault.

We went to war because we thought that Saddam had WMDs.

We need to be greener and cut down on fossil fuel consumption because if we don’t the Earth’s climate will warm up.

By saying that we were going to war because of the injustices and crimes against humanity that Saddam was performing then fewer people would still be protesting the West’s involvement in Iraq.

Earth

Who's data can we trust?

By saying that we have to cut emissions and consumption because the earth has finite resources and if we consume all of them now, as we are doing, there will be nothing left for future generations then we wouldn’t have to face the strong tide of people rejecting climate change because of the meddling of data sets by a few renegade scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

No one can argue that the earth is running out of oil, not even the ultra conservatives can say that the gas under the North Sea will last for ever. So why pick on climate change as the be all and end all strategy for greener economies. Economies powered by oil should be able to see that there current economic climate (let alone actual climate) won’t last so should be investing in sustainable alternatives anyway.

The problem of course lies with the chosen “vehicle of change” that many government’s have used, by backing “a warming climate” slogan instead of a more inclusive approach using sustainability as the forefront for change governments and green supporters have now opened themselves for a lot of criticism.

I understand that getting people to sit up and take notice is a difficult task in this day and age, especially when it is the average individual you are trying engage as ultimately it is they (all of us) who have the responsibility of trying to live more sustainably. It means getting people to do what they don’t want to do, sort their trash/rubbish, recycle, remembering to bring a reusable bag to the shops, using public transport and eating less meat. People have become used to this in our society and it will take plenty of persuading for them to give up their ways. Those UEA scientists however took “attention seeking” for their cause too far by justifying to themselves that fudging the numbers and covering up their lies would some how serve the greater good.

The motives of those UEA scientists will be released in time but the only facts we now know for sure is that the cause of sustainability has suffered because of their actions and that because of it the Copenhagen summit will have to deal with this issue instead of concentrating on setting real targets and initiatives.

Nyhavn, Copenhagen

One lasting question from all of this will be whether the timing of the discovery was merely a coincidence or in fact a well planned attack by those with vested interests in stalling Copenhagen’s talks?