This is “The Flat Earth Society”

This post is also available in: Spanish

Environment in general and climate change specifically are nowadays trending topics, using terms from Twitter. They are in the front line whenever they arise: in the highlights of news and media publications, in the strategic plans of worldwide organizations, are present in national programs, in the agendas and lectures of the most important policy makers, in educational plans of prestigious universities, are the aim of the activism of very influencer people around the world, they appear in your daily conversations. It is even expected an encyclical on Earth environment by the successor of Peter, Pope Francis.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations), is the torchbearer of climate change

When it comes to the human causes of climate change, the consistency reached by the data and the scientific, politic and social consensus is overwhelming, almost absolute. 97% of climate scientists agree that human caused climate changes are happening and there is no politician who calles it into question if he or she does´t want to become a subject of criticism and even sarcasm.

I underline “almost absolute”, since there is along the world a group of scientists (that fewer and fewer remainder 3%), certain characters related to politics and citizens in general whom are sceptic or directly deny the human factor of climate change.  They are what Obama calls “The Flat Earth Society” (Remarks by Obama on climate change, Georgetown University Washington DC, 25 de junio de 2013), connecting them, in an ironic way, with those who centuries ago considered a heresy the fact that the Earth is round (these already exists).

This is the point. The consistency of their arguments is as reduced as the number of supporters. In fact, they became the role of activist, alternative, rebels, what is indeed curious: activist against activists, a kind of climate change counteractivists.

Well, days ago a report, “Climate Change reconsidered II”, March 31 2014, got certain impact. It was issued by one of the main organizations of the “Flat Earth Society” called Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), what seems in some way a joke.

When you read certain sentences of the report, you understand the reason of the irony around this collective. They afford to write arguments like:

“[…] the multiple positive effects of CO2 and temperatures rising / warmer temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations will be highly beneficial, favoring a proliferation of species. IPCC continues to ignore such positive externalities […]”

“[…] Any human global climate signal is so small as to be nearly indiscernible against the background variability of the natural climate system […]”

“[…] the most prudent climatic policy is to get ready and adapt for future harmful events and climate changes, whatever the cause […]”

“[…] policy makers and public administrations should resist the pressure of lobbies silencing the scientists questioning the IPCC authority when arguing in the name of climatic science […]”

“[…] the fashionable idea, according to which human CO2 emissions will cause a dangerous global warming […]”

Frederick Singer, distinguished scientist, climate change sceptic

Appart from the poorly justified and traced data -despite of the support of reliable scientists- this society´s strategy is to discredit the agreed scientific methods, what shows the real intentions of these counter activists: when you a little go into depth, you find their connections with groups pursuing politic and economic interests, to which do not help the decisions that the climate change needs.

To finish the circle around all this paradoxical situation, there must be clear that behind the climate change there are lots of plans and speeches, but that practical decisions are not at the level of such intentions, and that´s why the planet is damaging. That is, this flat earth societies are doing well.

Flat Earth Society: maybe they aren´t just a handful of people, aren´t they?