Climate change conversation was 'couched', but now openly catastrophic

by Robert McLean.

Personal interest in climate change began more than a decade ago.

Paul Kingsnorth - he said
 too much, too strongly.

A story in the Melbourne Age made oblique warnings about the world getting hotter, discussing carbon dioxide, troubles with the atmosphere and yet making no real predictions about the troubles to come.

World climatologists were, at that time though, certain the world was heading for rather difficult times.

The world of science is, however, one of caution and rarely does anyone announce with an unequivocal surety that certain things are going to happen as that is simply that nature of science – nothing is certain, ever.

Although there was an underlying certainty about the dangers to life on earth, the conversation was always couched in caution as scientists are not prone to making blatant comments not saying anything that might “scare the horses”.

In the latter part of last century, it is fair to say that the science pointing to the potential cataclysmic outcomes of climate change had been proven beyond doubt, but many still had questions about the veracity of the evidence pointing to what is now truly evident.

Doubts were legitimate for that is how science is advanced with scepticism and awkward questions being the engine of its authenticity.

The essence of science has not changed, but has revealed that the authenticity of climate change with some 97 per cent of the world’s qualified scientists agreeing that life on earth is now rather problematic.

In just a decade that conversation has gone from cautious (“don’t scare the horses”) to telling it like it is (catastrophic).

An article in the New York Times headed: “It’s the end of the world as we know it…… and he feels fine” report on Paul Kingsnorth who apologizes for having said too much, and said it too strongly.