Dana Nuccitelli critiques an article appeared just a few days ago in the newspaper “The Australian”, wrote by Bjorn Lomborg author of the book “The Skeptical Ecologist” (2001). As many of you know, this author, rival of Al Gore, thinks world governments should not be concerned about climate change, instead they should be tackling more important problems as poverty or hunger.
Effectively, this sounds misconceived, specially in the context of the recent release of the IPCC climate change report. And like the author, I agree that any newspaper, even supporting freedom of the press, should publish uninformed opinions that contradict scientific facts. However, I do think Lomborg has a valid point that should be heard in climate change debate: climate change reports seems so catastrophic and complex that makes us think little can be done, if more efforts were put into opportunities to adapt, perhaps greater changes would appear worldwide. Indeed, as Dana points out at the end of his article “the climate 'debate' isn't about science at all".
......given that an ideological opposition to climate solutions seems to be the basis for this denial, it would be nice if we could all move beyond arguing about well-established science and instead debate about climate policies. After all, if we're all honest with ourselves, the climate 'debate' isn't about science at all.