robinwestenra | Following
on from my recent post regarding the attempt by Dr Gavin Schmidt to
rubbish the research of Russian scientists, led by Dr Natalia
Shakhova and Dr Igor Semiletov, it now emerges that the latter were
not even invited to the high profile meeting at the Royal Society.
The
event, held a fortnight ago, is still causing controversy beyond the
negative tweeting by NASA Goddard Director, Dr Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt
aimed his presentation at discrediting the Russian’s work, using
theoretical models, without expertise in methane, or credible data.
The end result is that the Russian team have composed a letter to
Royal Society President, Sir Paul Nurse, asking for an opportunity to
present their findings, including contributions from over 30
scientists working in the region for over 20 years.
One
of the longstanding major triumphs of the scientific community has
been a commitment to apolitical analysis of important research. We
all know there are geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West,
but are these now making an unwelcome entree into an area that could
pose enormous risk for humanity at large?
The
risk of large-scale releases of the deadly greenhouse gas, methane,
from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) may be a subject of debate
in the scientific community, but to purposefully exclude one side of
the debate and openly denounce their findings is not just immoral, it
is reckless.
The
letter, signed by Semiletov and Shakhova on behalf of more than 30
scientists, does state to the Royal Society President that the
evidence shown by Dr Schmidt (based on work by Dr David Archer) is
purely theoretical and that, despite both being very skilled climate
modellers, neither has expertise in methane or the area in question,
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf.
Whilst
the meeting was in process, an expedition in the ESAS was in
progress, with over 80 Russian and Swedish scientists. So why would
such high profile Western scientists try to discredit a large and
growing body of research? It is a hard question to answer, but the
intent is certainly evident.
It
is a matter for all of our concern if there is a posed risk of
environmental devastation emanating from any region of the world. The
Earth system does not acknowledge sovereignty or nationalist
interests. International collaboration and respect are vital if we
are to understand the changes that are going on as a result of man
made climate change. The Earth is heating up and many feedbacks from
the heating, such as methane releases, are not fully understood but
are known to have caused enormous changes in the global climate.
The
division between the climate modelling camp and the scientists
carrying out observational research is completely nonsensical. It
seems perfectly logical that the data collected by one group should
be used by the other in order to make the models more accurate. If
climate models have no basis in reality, then how can we trust their
reliability?
The
disdain shown by Dr Schmidt for his international colleagues should
now be put aside and the doors of the Royal Society opened to allow
the Russian team to present their findings. It is in all of our
interests that this takes place, so, Sir Paul, over to you…
0 comments:
Post a Comment