Climate change no myth
I feel I must respond to Charles Hong’s continued misunderstanding (Letters, Oct. 5, page 8).
I have no doubt that there is a controversy over climate change on the Internet. There is no question that media organizations will either reflect, or, in the case of Fox News, promote, alternative, skeptical views. Both are part of the wider political controversy I mentioned previously.
Equally, there is no question that it is usually a mistake to attribute any given local weather event to climate change, whatever your view on climate change may be, because the climate is a long-term trend over years; not what the weather is doing today or has done this month.
However, climate change — brought about by rising global temperatures to which greenhouse gases, including CO2, resulting from human activity play a not insignificant part — is neither a scientific controversy nor simply a “belief” that requires “respect” that happens to be held by some people. It is the scientific consensus subscribed to by a majority of experts in the field, built up over 35 years or more of scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Thousands of scientists have in recent years contributed to four major (some say conservative) assessments of this literature from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and national governmental reports based on the science, such as the UK’s 2006 700-page Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, are all very, very clear.
There is not anything like the equivalent weight of evidence on the side of skeptics and it is therefore a consensus that needs urgently to be acknowledged in some quarters before we can move on to thinking more seriously about tackling the possible consequences, in particular in the US, which continues to downplay the role of the UN in attempting to reach an -international agreement.
PAUL DEACON
Kaohsiung
Charles Hong states the obvious when he writes that the carbon footprint of electric cars is entirely dependent upon the way in which the electricity is generated.
However, a brief search on Google reveals a number of Web sites stating that cars running on coal-generated electricity have a carbon footprint of one-third of their gasoline equivalent. For example, one such site can be found at www.bbc.co.uk/bloom/actions/electriccars.shtml.
In stating that coal releases more carbon dioxide than oil, Hong misses the fact that comparing coal burned in a power station with oil in an internal combustion engine is not comparing like with like. The size of a power station lends efficiency. Another quick search reveals that coal-fired power stations can run at 60 percent efficiency whereas internal combustion engines run at 20 percent to 30 percent, giving the electric car a big head start.
He also states that there are 1,370,000 hits on Google relating to “global warming controversy 2010” (searched without quotes). This tells us that there are a lot of Web pages with these four words. There are 11 million hits for “intelligent design” and 591,000 hits for “Loch Ness Monster.” This tells us that there is a lot of information on the Web, some of it reliable, some of it not, and it tells us that people don’t always agree on issues. What this raw data doesn’t tell us anything about is the credibility of either side of the argument.
There are scientists who question all or part of the “climate change as a result of human activity” hypothesis and due to the nature of science, there probably always will be. It should be emphasized that they are a very small minority, even if an exact proportion is hard to reference.
TOBY WILSDON
Taipei
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
The pan-blue camp in the era after the rule of the two Chiangs — former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — can be roughly divided into two main factions: the “true blue,” who insist on opposing communism to protect the Republic of China (ROC), and the “red-blue,” who completely reject the current government and would rather collude with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control Taiwan. The families of the former group suffered brutally under the hands of communist thugs in China. They know the CPP well and harbor a deep hatred for it — the two
RSS